1. Is the Idaho state court in violation of the rule in Brady v. Maryland by changing
the evidence, contrary to uncontroverted evidence, in dismissing the third component
of a Brady violation that obviates "reasonable probability of a different verdict "?

2. When pursuant to the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, where only a
preponderance of evidence is required, does the standard of reasonable probability
become more attainable when only a preponderance of evidence is the threshold?

3. Is the State of Idaho in conflict with Federal laws and other States where duress
negates criminal intent?

Is the Idaho state court in violation of the Brady-v-maryland rule by changing the evidence, contrary to uncontroverted evidence, in dismissing the third component of a Brady violation that obviates 'reasonable probability of a different verdict'?