Given the extreme facts of this case, should this Court finally turn to footnote 10 and Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Cullen v. Pinholster to hold that facts only disclosed after state court proceedings which give rise to claims under Brady and Napue must either be considered by federal courts in adjudicating the merits of those claims, or they must be returned to state court for first adjudication there?

Should the Court grant certiorari to settle a conflict amongst the circuits as to the answer to question 1?

Should the Court settle the confusion in the lower courts, both state and federal, concerning whether the lower court should have denied the Brady claim here in reliance on the (unsubstantiated) view that Mr. Dennes knew or should have known that the State's chief witness against him was a long-time informant for the Houston Police Department, imposing a Brady due diligence requirement in excess of this Court's Banks and Saickler diligence requirements?

Should newly discovered Brady/Napue evidence be considered by federal courts or returned to state court?