Under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, does a court reviewing a criminal defendant's claims under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois commit prejudicial error when it:

I. makes a clearly erroneous factual finding that a suppressed immunity agreement was not consummated, given significant evidence indicating otherwise?

A. makes an unreasonable legal conclusion that the prosecuting attorney did not err when they bolstered the credibility of a witness and mislead the jury by eliciting false evidence that no immunity agreement existed between the prosecution and the witness?

Does a court commit prejudicial error under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois when it makes erroneous factual findings and unreasonable legal conclusions regarding a suppressed immunity agreement?