Since Youngblood & Brady are doctrines governing evidentiary preservation and focus on the prosecutions conduct, should courts be allowed to impose a due diligence requirement on a defendant to discover evidence of a law enforcement officers misconduct, or apply it to a defaulted Youngblood claims 'cause' analysis; or does that imposition undermine the fundamental due process protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment or violate Equal Protection of the Law?

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTBradv v. Maryland laid the constitutional framework for the prosecutions duty when handling evidence, but it did not address whether courts can or cannot impose a due diligence requirement on a defendant to discover evidence of the prosecutors misconduct, or apply it to a defaulted Bradv claims “cause ” analysis. However, it gave guidance in Strickler v, Greene & Banks v. Dretke that explicitly rejected the notion that courts can, because .Bradv is entirely focused on the prosecutor ’s conduct & their duty to ensure fairness., The 3rd Circuit used this guidance in Dennis v. Sec’v Pa. D.O.C.. 834 F.3d 263, 290-93 (3rd Cir. 2016 ){en banc) to clarify its position that the concept of due diligence plays no role in the Brady ’s analysis. Arizona v. Youngblood laid the constitutional framework for the prosecutions conduct when handling evidence, consequently, unlike for Bradv claims, this Court has never addressed nor offered guidance as to whether courts can or cannot impose a due diligence requirement on a defendant to discover evidence of a law enforcement officers misconduct, or apply it to a defaulted Youngblood claims “cause ” analysis. However, in Jimerson v. Pavne . 957 F.3d 916, 927 (8th Cir. 2020), the 81h circuit applied Dennis ’ guided position on Bradv & due diligence to Youngblood & Napue v. Illinois claims. Instantly, the 3rd cir. did not extend Dennis ’ position on Bradv & due diligence to petitioner ’s Youngblood claim and did not excuse “cause ” for default because, petitioner did not exercise due diligence in discovering evidence of the law enforcement officers alleged misconduct that formed, concealed & hindered him from raising the claim earlier. In Fisher v. Illinois & Glossip v. Oklahoma , the Supreme Court clarified procedures for analyzing separate constitutional violations under Youngblood & Napue . however, it has never addressed the procedures for analyzing an incorporation of those constitutional violations. Instantly, the 3rd cir. found petitioner ’s Youngblood claim was ‘properly analyzed as two distinct i claims under Youngblood & Napue because, the law enforcement officers alleged false testimony was intertwined with the Youngblood claims facts. ’ Petitioner ’s case presents an opportunity for this Court to provide clarity, guidance, or establish uniform standards on: an issue constitutionally akin to the one guidance was provided for under Brady and, on how to analyze an incorporation of constitutional violations. Intervention is necessary to eliminate inferior courts inconsistent rulings on prosecutorial misconduct based claims, protect due process rights, uphold the integrity of criminal proceedings and ensure the fair and equal administration of justice nationwide. OUESTION(S) PRESENTED : Since Youngblood & Brady are doctrines governing evidentiary preservation and focus on 1.) the prosecutions conduct, should courts be allowed to impose a due diligence requirement on a defendant to discover evidence of a law enforcement officers misconduct, or apply it to a defaulted Youngblood claims “cause ” analysis; or does that imposition undermine the fundamental due process protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment or violate Equal Protection of the Law? If courts are not allowed, is petitioner entitled remand, permitted an evidentiary hearing, and/or merits review of his Youngblood claim? 2.) If a destruction of evidence claims facts include false testimony, should the false testimony be unified into Youngbloods bad faith analysis or, is the destruction of evidence claim properly analyzed as two distinct claims under Youngblood & Napue ? If analyzed separately, does it violated Equal Protection of the Law or create an arbitrary distinction that places an unequal burden on defendants based upon the type of prosecutorial misconduct based claim they are raising? li