compelling countervailing considerations, as for instance witness safety, are not at issue, we continue to consider it preferable to leave for this court, with the assistance of both parties, the ultimate determination whether possibly exculpatory evidence would affect the propriety of a death sentence; and doing so in a single appellate proceeding rather than piecemeal, following sequential challenges to, and appeals of, the materiality predictions of either a prosecutor or district court, furthers the purposes of unitary review. {19 Whether or not the due process framework articulated in Brady and its progeny would otherwise apply to post-conviction proceedings in death penalty cases, of Dist. Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 68-69, 129 S.Ct. 2308, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009) (<HOLDING>), we have long-since concluded that the
holding that in postconviction proceedings complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal and that it is wrong to review the petitioners fundamental error claim in a postconviction proceeding holding that a defendant does not have the right to be represented by counsel in postconviction proceedings which are civil proceedings holding the brady framework inapplicable to postconviction proceedings generally holding pendency of postconviction judicial proceedings relevant to immunity determination holding title vtis mixedmotives framework inapplicable to the adea