Robert Allen Benney v. Thomas McGinley, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT- Bradv v. Maryland laid the constitutional framework for the prosecutions duty when handling evidence, but it did not address whether courts can or cannot impose a due diligence requirement on a defendant to discover evidence of the prosecutors misconduct, or apply it to a defaulted Bradv claims “cause” analysis. However, it gave guidance in Strickler v, Greene & Banks v. Dretke that explicitly rejected the notion that courts can, because .Bradv is entirely focused on the prosecutor’s conduct & their duty to ensure fairness., The 3rd Circuit used this guidance in Dennis v. Sec’v Pa. D.O.C.. 834 F.3d 263, 290-93 (3rd Cir. 2016){en banc) to clarify its position that the concept of due diligence plays no role in the Brady’s analysis. Arizona v. Youngblood laid the constitutional framework for the prosecutions conduct when handling evidence, consequently, unlike for Bradv claims, this Court has never addressed nor offered guidance as to whether courts can or cannot 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. However, in Jimerson v. Pavne. 957 F.3d 916, 927 (8th Cir. 2020), the 81h circuit applied Dennis’ guided position on Bradv & due diligence to Youngblood & Napue v. Illinois claims. Instantly, the 3rd cir. did not extend Dennis’ position on Bradv & due diligence to petitioner’s Youngblood claim and did not excuse “cause” for default because, petitioner did not exercise due diligence in discovering evidence of the law enforcement officers alleged misconduct that formed, concealed & hindered him from raising the claim earlier. In Fisher v. Illinois & Glossip v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court clarified procedures for analyzing separate constitutional violations under Youngblood & Napue. however, it has never addressed the procedures for analyzing an incorporation of those constitutional violations. Instantly, the 3rd cir. found petitioner’s Youngblood claim was ‘properly analyzed as two distinct