The case of Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, focusing on whether the state court's denial of the petitioner's request to waive procedural bars to his habeas corpus claim constitutes an adequate and independent state ground for review. The central issue revolves around alleged Brady and Napue violations, specifically the prosecution's suppression of evidence regarding a key witness's psychiatric treatment and altered testimony. The justices extensively discuss the state court's reasoning and whether its decision was adequately supported, considering the conflicting accounts of the prosecutors involved. Debate centers on the materiality of the suppressed evidence and whether its disclosure would likely have changed the trial's outcome. Finally, the court considers whether the Attorney General's confession of error necessitates a new trial.