Is a petitioner provided due process of law when he is convicted on evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction when said evidence was wholly based on illegal recordings of petitioner while severely intoxicated at the hands of police actors?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: IS A PETITONER PROVIDED A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS WHEN HE IS CONVICTED BASED ON THE DENIAL OF CONFRONTATION OF THE WITNESSES USED AGAINST HIM AT TRIAL AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS? THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: IS A PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WHEN SEVERELY PREJUDICIAL PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTS WERE IMPROPERLY INTRODUCED TO THE JURY? FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: IS A PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL WHEN HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL? A. TRIAL COUNSEL INTRODUCED PETITIONER’S PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS TO THE JURY. B. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND PROVIDE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE OF THE STATE’S ASSERTIONS THAT WOULD MAKE THEM IMPOSSIBLE AND PROVIDE AN ALIBI DEFENSE. C. TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPERT WITNESS TO ATTEST TO THE LEVEL OF PETITIONER’S INTOXICATION AT THE HANDS OF POLICE ACTORS WHEN STATEMENTS WERE MADE THAT WERE USED AS A CONFESSION. (a)