Whether the state court violated Mr. Booth's 6th Amendment rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED. so 7: A . | . . mane 8 . | + : 1) Whether the state court violated Mr. Booths 6th Amendment : . . Rights, when it clearly showed that due to his counsels unprofessional . errors and lazk of trial strategy during Mr.Booth's trial, when the defense counsel openly admits: that "he dropped the ball" : on Mr.Booth's defense during the trial. : . . . . ; . ; 2). Whether the testimony of the expert for the defense was sufficient enough to render a reasonable conclusion on the facts of the . fire, and the ability to determine an ignition source, other . than what the Fire Marshal Baker testified on during the trial. ' 3) Whether trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to object | ' to the testimony that the defendant started the fire. Was. the ' counsel's performance unreliable, or the proceedings unfair. (see Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S 364 (1993) | , . . 4) Whether Fire Marshal deviated from the standard protocols . of the fire investigation contained in the NFPA 921, when he , ; testified as an expert. witness during trial, and making his determination and conclusion that the fire was incendiary, absent . the ability to determine an ignition source. : . 2.5) Whether as a comparison case, Jackson V. McQuiggin, 553 Fed. : ‘Appx. 575 (6th Cir. 2014), Apetitioner convicted of arson argued . that counsel was ineffective at trial because he opted to forgo : i 4 ala ok S wae, expert testimony to refute the states expert theory that the fire was intentionally set. wi! \ 6) Whether the Courts. assessment 6f the investigation leading to a: .. strategic decision "was itself reasonable." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S 510,523 (2003). And where the trial counsel articulated a resound trial strategy wherein he was deprived of a fair trial, . and the defendant believes that there was a conceivable chance of a different result. 1 . t " 1 i ab 4 . a . {.