Opinion ID: 179722
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Certified claims and arguments of the parties

Text: Brooks applied for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in the district court, which was granted as to the following five claims: 1. [Brooks's] claim that the prosecution used false testimony of two witnesses in violation of [Brooks's] rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; [] 2. [Brooks's] claim that his statement to a state informant, whom the State recruited, violated [Brooks's] Sixth Amendment right to counsel; 3. [Brooks's] claim that the prosecution failed to disclose that the informant witness had a history of mental disorders[;] 4. [Brooks's] claim that the prosecution failed to disclose critical portions of the informant's prior criminal history involving crimes of dishonesty; [and] 5. [Brooks's] claim that the prosecution failed to disclose that the informant-witness had a history of receiving special treatment and privileges for providing information to law enforcement and correctional authorities. In addition, this court, pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, expanded the COA by agreeing to consider two more of Brooks's claims on appeal: [6.] whether the prosecution failed to disclose that the informant had testified falsely at a previous trial; and [7.] whether the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony of alleged coconspirator Edwin Lunceford, TBI Agent Hoyt Phillips, and the informant Michael Nelson [], in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Brooks has consolidated the seven certified claims into three issues on appeal. First, Brooks contends that the prosecution violated his due process rights by failing to disclose important impeaching information about Michael Nelson; specifically, that he suffered chronic mental illnesses, that he had prior felony convictions for forgery and perjury, that he had a history of receiving privileges from authorities in exchange for snitching, and that he reportedly had testified falsely at a previous trial. Brooks next argues that the prosecution violated his due process rights when it failed to correct the false testimony of Agent Phillips regarding fingerprint results, and the testimony of Michael Nelson regarding Brooks's putative confession. Finally, Brooks asserts that the prosecution violated the Sixth Amendment by using Michael Nelson to question Brooks after [Brooks] had been appointed counsel. Brooks has raised no argument in his briefs concerning the prosecution's purported presentation of false testimony by Edwin Lunceford. Accordingly, that issue is deemed waived. See Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365, 374 (6th Cir.1999) (holding that a court may consider any claims not addressed in an appellant's brief to be waived). The State responds that all of Brooks's certified claims are barred by procedural default. Further, the State argues that Brooks is unable to demonstrate cause and prejudice to excuse this procedural deficiency. It therefore urges us to affirm the judgment of the district court.