Did the AEDPA's 28§2254(e) legislation do away with Supreme Court precedent regarding the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause's entitlement to a full and fair hearing to state prisoners in state-court proceedings, such as state habeas court factfinding hearings, and thus preclude a state prisoner's former ability to overcome the presumption of correctness accorded such (paper) hearings, even if they are not full and fair?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , QESTION 1 Did the AEDPA's 28§2254(e) legislation do away with Supreme Court : precedent regarding the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause's entitlement to a full and fair hearingtostate prisoners in statecourt proceedings, such as state habeas court factfinding hearings, and thus preclude a state prisoner's former ability to overcome the presumption of correctness accorded such (paper) hearings, even if they are not full and fair? QUESTION 2 : Does overcoming a state prisoner's state requirement failure through a miscarriage of justice attack necessarily require the demonstration of new factual evidence to show : actual innocence, where the jury failed to recognize the insufficiency of the facts for. conviction testified to at trial--which facts were not diligently found and presented to either the state appellate court by appellant's ineffectual appellate attorney nor to the state habeas court by the indigent petitioner's inept lay attorney (inmate writ writer) in violation of the Constitution's , ; 6th (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel) and 14th (due : process) Amendments? , ii