rehearsed and had been told what to say. The Rule 3.850 court found that the lists of questions did not constitute “scripts” and that the prosecution had done nothing improper by using the lists and not disclosing them to Mills. The Supreme Court of Florida addressed this claim at length, finding that the lists of questions were not improper “scripts.” Mills II, 507 So.2d at 603-05. The district court agreed with the findings of the Rule 3.850 court and the supreme court. We also agree that the prosecution’s use of these lists was not improper and that the lists are not Brady material. F. Mills argues that the prosecution: (1) concealed a secret deal made with Galimore to obtain her testimony, see Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-55, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) (<HOLDING>); and (2) allowed Galimore to testify falsely
holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that the witness had accepted immunity in exchange for no prosecution