QUESTION ONE:
IS AN IN COURT IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE
ROBBER -ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL IN THE ABSENCE OF A DUE
PROCESS HEARING -TO FIRST DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY OF THE
ANTICIPATED IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY ESPECIALLY WHERE
THE WITNESS NEARLY A YEAR AFTER THE ROBBERY TESTIFIED
UNDER OATH AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT "I GUESS NOT",
AS TO WHETHER SHE COULD IDENTIFY PETITIONER AS THE
ROBBER?

QUESTION TWO. -
IS STRIKING THE ONLY BLACK PERSON DURING VOIR DIRE A
VIOLATION OF BATSON VERSUS KENTUCKY WHERE THE
PROSECUTOR'S STATEMENT THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE
POTENTIAL JUROR WAS BLACK WAS BELIED BY DOCUMENTS HE
HAD IN HIS POSSESSION THAT DETAILED THE JUROR'S HISTORY AS
WELL AS THE FACT THAT HE HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF A CRIMINAL
CHARGE?

QUESTION THREE:
WAS DUE PROCESS VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIED A
HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH'S FINGERPRINTING EXPERT'S FINDINGS WHICH
WHEN REVIEWED BY ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S LEADING EXPERTS
DEEMED IT INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE, INCOMPLETE, AND
IMPOSSIBLE TO ASSESS THE PROBABILITY IF THE CONCLUSION
WAS ACCURATE?

Is an in-court identification of the defendant as the robber admissible at trial in the absence of a due process hearing to first determine the reliability of the anticipated identification testimony, especially where the witness nearly a year after the robbery testified under oath at a preliminary hearing that 'I guess not' as to whether she could identify the petitioner as the robber?