(4) District attorneys/prosecutors have a free standing obligation to investigate and inquire into backgrounds of criminal jailhouse informants, including prosecution case files and files in possession of other law enforcement agencies (probation or parole) and to ascertain whether the criminal informants have served as informants or witnesses for the state in any prior criminal prosecutions against any person in exchange for any benefits considerations promises or assistance and to determine whether there is any evidence that sheds a shadow on their credibility.

(2) Disqualification of a prosecutor may be necessary when a conflict of interest exists or a prosecutor suffers from prejudice against the defendant that affects his/her ability to perform discretionary functions impartially.

(3) Importance of prosecutorial impartiality is paramount and indispensable to the integrity of justice.

(4) A showing of persistent prosecutorial misconduct and/or improper bad faith practices may be material evidence that supports the existance of a conflict meriting recusal.

(A) Repeated subversion into the preparation of a false case because of a conflict because the defense is never given the opportunity to take any actions that interferes and impinges on a defendant's sixth amendment civic rights to assistance of counsel.

(B) Absence of a conflict may be shown by the willful and reckless suppression of exculpatory and potentially exculpatory evidence on behalf of prosecutors because it violates settled principles of due process of law.

(C) Evidence of a conflict may be or secretively shown by the willful and reckless failure to collect and preserve known and apparent exculpatory and potentially exculpatory evidence as prosecutorial agents and that results in bad faith loss and destruction because it clearly violates fair due process principles.

(D) Evidence of a conflict may be or protectively shown by the willful and reckless failure to prevent and/or correct malevolent disinformation and treachery caused by lying and dishonest criminal informants on behalf of the state and prosecution agents because it violates well settled principles of due process guaranteed protections.

B. This case involves questions of exceptional importance because the state court of last resort decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the Supreme Court and that substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.

(1) The state is depriving petitioner plain adequate and speedy remedies in the ordinary course of law, specially during the pendency of criminal prosecutions where violations of substantial state and federal constitutional civil rights threaten to undermine and erode the function and integrity of the trial process mechanism from beginning to end.

Whether district attorneys/prosecutors have a free-standing obligation to investigate and inquire into the backgrounds of criminal jailhouse informants, including prosecution case files and files in possession of other law enforcement agencies (probation or parole), and to ascertain whether the criminal informants have served as informants or witnesses for the state in any prior criminal prosecutions against any person in exchange for any benefits, considerations, promises or assistance, and to determine whether there is any evidence that sheds a shadow on their credibility