Whether the district court's dismissal of all but 2 defendants caused prejudice to petitioner

No question identified. : . A. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF ALL BUT 2 DEFENDANTS CAUSED PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER? B. WHETHER THE JURY'S VERDICT IS CONTRARY TO THE CLEAR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED OF EXCESSIVE FORCE PER SE? C. WHETHER THE SDPD OFFICERS’ CONDUCT WERE “OBVIOUSLY” UNLAWFUL THUS THE OFFICERS VIOLATED A CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT? D. WHETHER THE JURORS ARRIVED AT AN IMPROBABLE VERDICT CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND A NEW TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED? E. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION : WITH ITS RULINGS AGAINST KASSAB INCLUDING: LIMITS ON DISCOVERY, DENIAL OF MOTIVE EVIDENCE, DENIAL OF KASSAB’S MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE, DENIAL OF KASSAB’S EXPERT TESTIMONY, AND IMPOSING A 10-HOUR TRIAL LIMIT, AND ALLOWING IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AGAINST KASSAB? F, WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S SUBPOENA POWER CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE PETITIONER (FOR EXAMPLE, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICER ALBERTO LEOS)? G. WHETHER THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AS A RESULT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING ON CONTINUANCES, DISCOVERY, EXPERT WITNESSES, PRETRIAL PREPARATION TIME, MOTIONS, AND OBJECTIONS? H. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO DEVELOP THE DEFENDANTS’ ULTERIOR MOTIVES FOR PETITIONER'S ARREST, CAUSED PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER? i