with her own report disclosing missing data at five loci. Counsel was also armed with enough information to disclose Ms. Houtz’s involvement in the initial testing and in the chain of custody underlying the DNA analysis. In any event, our resolution of the issue again turns on Appellant’s inability to establish prejudice in light of the compelling other evidence establishing his identity as the robber and killer and the fact of a rape, and the absence of any plausible alternative theory to discount that Appellant was also the rapist. C. Cumulative Effect of Alleged Napue and Brady Violations Appellant next characterizes the assertedly false testimony and alleged concealment of evidence as violations of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959) (<HOLDING>), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83
holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights holding that a conviction obtained through the knowing reckless or negligent use of false testimony must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury holding that prosecutor cannot obtain conviction with the aid of false testimony where the prosecutor knows such testimony is false holding that an ijs failure to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel from a pro se petitioner is a due process violation holding that the knowing use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates due process