Did the petitioner give the first opportunity of the state supreme court to resolve such claims, issues, contentions in a state habeas corpus?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) DID THE PETITIONER GIVE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY OF THE STATE ‘SUPREME COURT TO RESOLVE SUCH CLAIMS, ISSUES,CONTENTIONS IN A STATE HABEAS CORPUS?. ANSWER: YES 2) DID THE SUPREME COURT ERR IN NOT GIVING ANY OPINIONS,AS TO WHY IT DENIED THE STATE HABEAS CORPUS?. ANSWER: NO . 3) ARE THESE CLAIMS, ISSUES,OR CONTENTIONS WAIVED,AS NOT BEING LITIGATED IN OPEN COURT,AND ON THE RECORDS? ANSWER: NO 4)DOES PETITIONER CLAIM HIS INNOCENCE?. ANSWER: YES. : 5) DOES THE PETIZTIONER HAVE. A CLAIM UNDER BATSON VS KENTUCKY?7ANSWER: YES 6) DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS,AND SUCH? DENIAL OF AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE PETITIONER AT TRIAL? ANSWER: YES. ; 7) IS THERE A CLAIM OF REASONABLE DOUBT,WHERE ALL ELEMENTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER WAS NEVER PROVEN BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA? ANSWER: YES. sO 8) IS THERE A CLAIM OF "CAUSE AND PREJUDICE" THAT EXISTED? ANSWER: YES. 9) IS THERE A CLAIM OF A "MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE" THAT WAS CONDONED UPON THE PETITIONER? ANSWER: YES. 10) IS THERE A CLAIM OF FALSIFYING RECORDS AND INFORMATION IN ORDER TO GET A CONVICTION WRONGFULLY? ANSWER: YES 11) DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE A CLAIM OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT? YES... ‘ QUESTIONS CONT'D; 12) WAS THE EVIDENCE VERY WEAK WHERE OTHER CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE PETITIONER CONCERNING INVOLUNTARY . MANSLAUGHTER? ANSWER: YES. 13) DOES PLAYZA).VITAL ROLE IN PETITIONER'S CASE? ANSWER: YES. : 14) DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE A CLAIM OF PERJURED TESTIMONIES COMMITTED BY THE PROSECUTIONS WITNESSES? ANSWER: YES 15) SHOULD THERE BE AN EXHUMATION OF THE CORPSE OF PETITIONERS WIFE? . ANSWER: YES. 16) poES THIS EXHUMATION OF THE CORPSE OF PETITIONER'S WIFE CONSISTS OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT HAPPENED AND FOR WHICH IT CONCERNS MEDICAL FORENSIC AND SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS AS TO WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? ANSWER: YES. , 17) IS THERE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS IN THE AVENUE OF REACHING — JUSTICE PETITIONER SO WELL DESERVES? ANSWER: YES. ; “18) DID PETITIONER §0MNOTFAUMDROERHDS BHATITHECEINOEDENL WAS . WEAPON? ANSWER: YES. 19) IS THERE MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT WHICH THE ELEMENTS WAS NEVER PROVEN WHERE RESPONSIBILITY WAS NOT AT THE FAULT OF PETITIONER? . ANSWER: YES. 20) DID PETITIONER GET A "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL" UNDER THE ; SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH : ANSWER: NO. (ii) , wa cS ;