1. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals [TCCA] in several opinions
has observed that, "Even unknowing use of false testimony violates
a defendants's due process rights." See Ex Parte Chavez, 371 S.W.
3d 200; Ex Parte Chabot, 300 S.W. 3d 768; and Ex Parte Robbins, 360
S.W. 3d 446. Considering Texas Highest Criminal Court 's opinion that
even unknowing use of false testimony to obtain a conviction, vio
lates a defendant's due process rights, the questions presented are:
(a) Whether the district court erred to deny relief by reliance
on the Fifth Circuit ruling in Kinsel v. Cain, 647 F. 3d
265, 272 that "because prosecution did not know that vic
tim's statements were false. Petitioner failt to demon
strate a due process violation";
(b) Whether the district court was authorized to substitute its
own interpretation of the State law for that of the Court of
Criminal Appeals? Or to contest a well-settled State law? In
Schad v. Arizona, 111 S.Ct. 2491, this Court held: "Supreme
Court is not free to substitute its own interpretation of
state statutes for those of state's courts";
(c) Whether the State Court's interpretation of State law was
binding on the federal district court? In Bradshaw v. Richey,
126 S.Ct. 603, this Court observed: "A state court's inter
pretation of state law...binds a federal court sitting in
habeas corpus";
(d) Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision in Kinsel v. Cain, supra
is even applicable to Texas cases where it conflicts with
the Texas Highest Criminal Court's precedents on unknowing
use of false testimony; and
(e) Whether the lower courts created a question of law on un
knowing use of false testimony in Texas which requires legal
clarity from this Gourt ?oSee'"R-ule _1G. In other words
should the Texas courts resolve the issue of unknow-
of false testimony in the future? Should the courts
decide the issue in accordance with the interpretation of the
T.C.C.A. that even unknowing use of false testimony violates
a defendant's due process rights? Or should the courts adopt
the Fifth Circuit's approach that it does not?in which
manner
ing use

2. The Supreme Court has clearly established that "prosecution's
suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates
due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punish
ment." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83. This Court has further held,
"Government's failure to assist defense by disclosing information that
might have been helpful in conducting cross-examination amounts to
constitutional violation." U.S. v. Bagley, 105 S.Ct. 3375.
In the present case, the post-trial discoveries have established
that the prosecution willfully refused to disclose to defense two key
witnesses whose testimonies tend to negate the guilt of Petitioner.
Considering the foregoing, the questions presented are:
(a) Whether "the prosecution is guilty of misconduct when he de
liberately suppresses evidence that is clearly relevant and
favorable to the

whether-unknowing-use-of-false-testimony-violates-due-process