1. Whether due process and this Court's precedents
(Napue v. Illinois , Giglio v. United States , Kyles v.
Whitley ) require a federal trial court to hold an
evidentiary hearing before denying a Rule 33 motion
for new trial where multiple sworn post-trial
recantations by accusing witnesses admit perjury and
reveal undisclosed inducements, where the credibility
of those witnesses was decisive at trial.

2. Whether a court of appeals violates Kyles v. Whitley ,
514 U.S. 419 (1995), when it rejects a Brady claim by
evaluating each suppressed item in isolation rather
than cumulatively, particularly where suppressed
impeachment evidence, corroborated recantations,
and physical-evidence irregularities collectively
undermine confidence in a criminal verdict.

3. Whether an appellate court may invoke the invitederror or waiver doctrine to bar review of the legal
standard a district court applied in denying a Rule 33
new-trial motion when (a) the law in that circuit was
unsettled, (b) the defendant advanced alternative
standards below, and (c) the doctrine thus precludes
review of whether the correct legal rule governed the
outcome.

Whether due process requires a federal trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying a Rule 33 motion for new trial based on sworn post-trial recantations by accusing witnesses admitting perjury, and whether appellate courts must evaluate Brady claims cumulatively rather than in isolation when suppressed evidence collectively undermines confidence in a verdict