Whether the court of appeals erred in requiring that an expert witness, instead of trial counsel, correct the false impression that the prosecutor created

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in requiring that an expert witness, instead of trial counsel, correct the false impression that the prosecutor created on cross-examination that the leading experts in the country on the interpretation of certain psychological tests had evaluated Murphy’s results and concluded that he would be dangerous in prison and in requiring that Murphy prove that the chance of a different result was substantial rather than reasonably probable. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in affording the presumption of correctness to the state trial court’s alternative fact findings that the suppressed evidence was not material, which the appellate court did not authorize or adopt when it dismissed the subsequent habeas corpus application on procedural grounds without considering the merits.