With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 970 (3d Cir. 1991); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 283, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). I doubt whether the evidence at issue in this case is exculpatory, particularly because there was no evidence — and the Commonwealth did not allege — that Brine’s murder was coupled with or motivated by sexual assault. See, e.g., Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 795, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972) (no due process violation where prosecution failed to hand over evidence of other suspect). I also doubt whether the government suppressed anything, particularly because the substance of the evidence at issue was openly reported in the newspapers on a number of different occasions. See, e.g., Wright v. Hopper, 169 F.3d 695, 702 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, I ultimately deny Pursell’s

A: holding that disputed factual issue existed as to whether claimant knew or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have known prior to running of statute of limitations existence of compensable claim
B: holding that the plaintiffs assertion that he neither knew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known about the governments possible liability for his injury was irrelevant to accrual of his ftca claim
C: holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence
D: holding that government did not suppress evidence when defendant knew about the existence of the evidence and could obtain it through the exercise of reasonable diligence
D.