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?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 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? —