1. Whether the prosecution's failure to provide Brady evidence is excused by trial counsel's lack of diligence in pursuing that evidence, and whether Mr. Wilson's counsel were ineffective in failing to obtain the evidence.

2. Where a defendant is arrested in circumstances indistinguishable from those described in Kaupp, can probable cause to excuse the illegality of the arrest be supplied by the uncorroborated, unsworn statement of a co-defendant, where the co-defendant's veracity is unknown to the police and the co-defendant, while admitting some culpability, shifts the blame for the most egregious conduct to the defendant? And is defense counsel ineffective for failing to argue the applicability of Kaupp where the circumstances of the arrest and probable cause are virtually identical?

Whether the prosecution's failure to provide Brady evidence is excused by trial counsel's lack of diligence in pursuing that evidence, and whether Mr. Wilson's counsel were ineffective in failing to obtain the evidence