Whether the court of common pleas erred in limiting Mr. Stein's ability to establish witness Joseph Farley's bias

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 1. WHETHER THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN LIMITING MR. STIEN ABILITY TO ESTABLISH WITNESS JOSEPH FARLEY’S . BIAS WHERE MR. STEIN WAS PREVENTED FROM INQUIRING INTO . FARLEY’S ARREST AND CONVICTION OF PROSTITUTION AND SOLICITATION IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WERE PRO‘BATION VIOLATIONS AND OTHER POSSIBLE PENALTIES, AND WHE~ THER FARLEY’S CASES OR SENTENCING HAD BEEN POSTPONED UN. TIL AFTER HE HAD TESTIFIED AGAINST PETITIONER WRIGHT AND WHETHER STARE DECISIS WAS FOLLOWED AND WHETHER PETITIONER’S SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN STATE APPELLATE COURT CONFIRMED CONVICTION? Suggested answer in the affirmative 2. WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE CROSS ‘EXAMINATION WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH PERMITTED TO : ASK A PROSECUTION WITNESS ABOUT ARREST AND CONVICTIONS, IS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING A RECORD FROM WHICH TO ARGUE BEFORE THE JURY THAT THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY WAS MOTIVATED BY HELP HE WAS RECEIVING FROM THE PROSECUTION TO GET HELP WITH HIS PROBATION VIOLATION AND A LIGHT SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES? . Suggested answer in the affirmative . 3. WHEN COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY DAWN HOLTZ FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE DEFENSE THAT JOSEPH FARLEY WAS GOING TO BE SENTENCED AS . : A PAROLE VIOLATOR, KNOWINGLY USED PERJURED TESTIMONY AND FAILED TO CORRECT PERJURED TESTIMONY WAS BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83, . (1963), KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) and BANKS v. DRETKE, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) VIOLATED ALONG WITH THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE? Suggested answer in the affirmative , i.