Whether the California Court of Appeal unreasonably determined the facts critical to a Confrontation Clause analysis of the introduction of a non-testifying neuropathologist's diagnosis on the cause of death

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) did the California Court of Appeal unreasonably determine the facts critical to a proper Confrontation Clause analysis of whether the diagnosis of a non-testifying neuropathologist could be introduced on the key issue of cause of death? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit fail to give sufficient liberal construction to the filing by a pro se petitioner when he submitted two new medical expert reports which challenged the conclusion regarding cause of death but did not respond to the district court’s queries regarding them other than to ask that an attorney be appointed to assist him in filing objections to the Report and Recommendation? ii