Can newly discovered material evidence revealing an unauthorized communication with a deliberating jury violate a defendant's constitutional rights and constitute a Brady violation when suppressed by the state?

1. Can newly discovered material evidence which revealed an unauthorized communication had with a deliberating jury, in the jury room, by/or through a Baihff, in violation of a Petitioner ’s 6th and 14th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution during a critical stage of the criminal proceedings: a) rise to the level of a Brady violation where said communication was suppressed by the state? b) or if such intrusion does not qualify as a Brady violation does the state ’s willful suppression of all evidence pertaining to said communication absolved a prisoner from showing that he could not have discovered the evidence by reasonable diligence? 2. Where, under a state ’s constitution, a convicted defendant is entitled to a direct appeal as of right: does a Brady violation occur where newly discovered material evidence clearly establishes that an omission of evidence in the trial transcript prevented a defendant-appellant from addressing a reversible misconduct on direct appeal with a supporting record? 3. Is Due Process, under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, offended when a state applies res judicata to a claim supported by newly discovered material evidence that was either unknown, or previously made unavailable by the state, to the prisoner during direct appeal? ii