Whether petitioner was denied due process and a fair trial when the state court overruled his motion to suppress statements and allowed videotaped statements to be played for the jury

No question identified. : QUESTION (s) PRESEwTED Le Whether (for any one and or all reasons stated herem) petitioner was denied his rightsto due process and a faiv trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United | States, when after holding a pre-tial Suppression Hearing (in petit loners absence), the State THal Court overruled petitioner's “motion to : suppress defendant's statements ", Thus, allowing (aker a renewed | obj ectionat trial) for petitioner S Viheotaped statements to be played for the jury e 2 whether (for any one and or all reasons stated herein) petitioner was dented his rights to due process anda fair trial under the Sicthand Fourteenth Amendments +o the @bab Constitution of the United States, when the State presented (videotape and trial testimonial heavsay) and allowed these hearsays to go to the jury a5 evidence ofan inj ury sustained by the accuser due to petitioner committing the accused act Thus, proving the changed actand an injury sustained by the accuser due to petthoner committing the accused act? 3: whether (for any one and orall of the reasons stated herein)counsel's performance fell below and objective standard o€ reasonableness and, 50, Whether petitfoner was pre; udiced by trial coun sel's def icieytperformance thereby depriving petttioner of his right fo the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to The United Stabes Constitution ? 4. whether (for any one and or-all of the reasons stated hereip) petidiney was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counse], due pyocess rights and right to a fale drial, when petitioner was Forced + goHbouXV QUESTIom(s) Count) ah several key courtpro ceedings without being awarded the counsel he requested, for a period of 13 months ¢ S. whether the District Court should have held an evideutiary hearing determine any one and or all of the abovequestions: . &: Whether, given the circumstances explained herein, petitioners Fed eval Tneffective Assistance of counsel ( failed to adduce evidence of metal incompetency ) due process claim was procedurally defaulted for Failing | to meet the pleading requirements of a4JS, that were adequate to supp| ovt thedenial of pelief, and if so; whether he has shown “cause” and “orejudice” to excuse the defau te? Je Whether, Cifatler determining the above guestion Gs) The Court answers yo teal, that one aspect of petitioner's T.4,C. claims b be barred for a plead} ng reguirements failure, causes all of petthioner § T.4.C. chims tobe barred for a plead| ng requirements failure ? §£. Whether (given the circumstances explained herein) petitioner (any ane andor all of peHtoneys) fedeval £ Miranda, Miranda [Brady (audiofape destruction), Brady (suppression and or prosecutorial miscoudact and Tneffective Assistance of Counsel I due process claims were procedurally defaulted for Failing t raise them in the State Courts that were adequate to deny relief, and /#; so; whether he has shown good “cause”and “prejudice ” fo excuse the default ? XVI