Whether the Pennsylvania Superior Court's denial of the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence resulted in an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT'S DENIAL ON DIRECT REVIEW OF THE CHALLENGE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN . SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR THIRD DEGREE MURDER AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RESULTED IN A DECISION THAT IS BASED ON AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT? WHETHER, IN A STATE TRIAL, THE TRIAL JUDGE'S MISSTATEMENT OF TESTIMONY, AND ITS ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE VIOLATES JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S. 307, WHERE A JURY BASED ITS VERDICT ON THAT EVIDENCE, AND THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO FIND A PETITIONER GUILTY AS TO EACH ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE . . BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? WHETHER, STATEMENTS FROM THE PROSECUTOR, AND TESTIMONY FROM COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES FROM REDACTED PORTIONS OF A CODEFENDANT'S CONFESSION VIOLATES JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S. 307, WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT WAS THE . REDACTED PORTIONS, AND WHETHER THIS SAME TESTIMONY VIOLATES BRUTON V. U.S., 391 U.S. 123? . . WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR'S STATEMENTS TO THE JURY FROM REDACTED a PORTIONS OF A CODEFENDANT'S STATEMENT IS PROSECUTORIAL : MISCONDUCT TO A LEVEL THAT IT VIOLATES PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL? :