Since Youngblood & Brady are doctrines governing evidentiary preservation and focus on the prosecutions conduct, should courts be allowed to impose a due diligence requirement on a defendant to discover evidence of a law enforcement officers misconduct, or apply it to a defaulted Youngblood claims "cause " analysis; or does that imposition undermine the fundamental due process protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment or violate Equal Protection of the Law? If courts are not allowed, is petitioner entitled remand, permitted an evidentiary hearing, and/or merits review of his Youngblood claim?

If a destruction of evidence claims facts include false testimony, should the false testimony be unified into Youngbloods bad faith analysis or, is the destruction of evidence claim properly analyzed as two distinct claims under Youngblood & Napue ? If analyzed separately, does it violated Equal Protection of the Law or create an arbitrary distinction that places an unequal burden on defendants based upon the type of prosecutorial misconduct based claim they are raising?

Since Youngblood & Brady are doctrines governing evidentiary preservation and focus on the prosecutions conduct, should courts be allowed to impose a due diligence requirement on a defendant to discover evidence of a law enforcement officers misconduct, or apply it to a defaulted Youngblood claims 'cause' analysis; or does that imposition undermine the fundamental due process protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment or violate Equal Protection of the Law?