Whether a constitutional error reviewed under plain error standards is an adjudication on the merits; and whether AEDPA deferential standards of review are applicable?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. During Petitioner Anthony OD. Phillips state appellate court proceedings, the appellate panel addressed several constitutional errors and determined they were unpreserved constitutional claims and viewed them under plain error standards. The Michigan court of appeals panel concluded the unpreserved claims of constitutional error did not affect Petitioner's substantial rights. The lower federal courts have conflicting case authority as to whether a constitutional error reviewed under opilain-error analysis is considered an adjudication on the merits. The question is as follows: WHETHER A CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR REVIEWED UNDER PLAIN ERROR STANDARDS iS AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS; AND WHETHER AEDPA DEFERENTIAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW ARE APPLICABLE? : Il. WHETHER MULTIPLE SIXTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS IN PETITIONER'S CASE INFECTED THE TRIAL WITH UNFAIRNESS AS TO MAKE THE RESULTING CONVICTION A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS? ill. Where a state prosecutor has impermissibly introduced false inculpatory evidence for the jury to decide Petitioner's guilt or innocence. The quesiion is as follows: . WHETHER JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S. 307 (1978) STANDARDS ARE APPLICABLE TO A CHALLENGE THAT THE STATE'S EVIDENCE Is INSUFFICIENT, WHERE THE JURY HAS BASED ITS VERDICT ON FALSE EVIDENCE?