Whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in failing to vacate the district court's judgment due to the state's failure to timely provide replaced discovery essential to the appellant's case, the admission of other acts evidence without prior notice, the admission of details of the appellant's prior bad acts, the failure to find the trial was fundamentally unfair due to improper and prejudicial conduct, the conviction for aggravated robbery against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the failure to provide an interpreter for the Vietnamese appellant who could not understand the court proceedings

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . V. HA Ae Asal Come ekFor In Failing to Seacten tha, Stele Loc Salling to Kimaly Qeovide Repalacd wit discovery essential to App elinat 5 Case: 2. Did We Aciod Courk error in permitting the Stoke 40 indtoduce evidence of other acts: pursuant to Go¥ (a) without peouiding Ago ellen with geror novice 2 A Wid the Aciol Courk error dv permitting Ane Stote to discuss fhe details ya Repalant's ORY BAD gursuank Yo GOO) 7 Uy Md ee, Ao Cone QTC in {as\voo Yo Kad wt Va Phebe Vane “0 WO \argrogeryy Condurded ond overly Suaqnesh ve ond gic yudiicinl to Kogdlany 2 ; 5. wy No Rogellants Conviction Loe Ragsavorrch Redbeey aysinst Ne Manes wean ot Yo av ihence anh NS Comrary to aw. 6D the Wa Couch ecler i not providlag “Ns inkeepseren ‘\ ; The Negelant is Vi rramese ond Could nol understand any Wing % | Asia oC Hay uc Coucd grocedinas,