Whether the trial attorney's pre-trial failure to secure an expert witness on eyewitness identification, which was the key piece of evidence that ultimately led the (uneducated) jury to find the petitioner guilty, violated the petitioner's due process rights

No question identified. : | Qvesrions Peesenren ted . cee BA TRIAL ATTORNEY PRE-TUDheARiLd ZEEE CVE 1E HE TARAUEN 11S onl Me LIGENGE. BY WAITING 720 Lott, FAILED 70 SECURE AN EXPERT WITNESS ON LINE-UP TbéAr7 ~Ficarzen, Witcw WAS THEMES FLECE OF EVIDENCE 771RT ULTIMATELY Tek. (UNEDUCATED THIS SCIENCE) TORY Uae 70Finlb His Berd ? DOES THE COURT BELIEVE THACHIAD THE “JURY BERN EDUCATED ON HoW 70s SPECIELC SCIENCE Ficroks wire RéGAebiale 716 2. TENTIAL LACK OF CREDIBILITY OF THE EVE WITNESS, THUT THEE. 1S A REASONIRELE PROBABIL ar ‘wietaprorecne? ce ee i enna eee wn ae Ls Arkh broker PReswbreimly Tlcerecr we LF He FAD TO OB SERIO THE... IN-couer ERENr IE LcATIOMl OF HE PETITIONER BY THENICIM WHEN, THE DEYECTIVE Mio. CentbuscrED THE SUBSEQUENT Pore LiMé-UP Phoceburé, NEF: SHUplé? AbMimeb ti His ROBABGE CAUSE SzreMenlC THAT AE WAS 1N] PSONE Conmracy: WITH THE EHEWITIVES § (MS. Kacer. WAWLE SHA WAS Ar-EAs srArin//Srke MoMéntrs BLEARE SHE REVIEWED THE SURVELLANee COM ‘ERA SUOMING THE. PEAZITONER'S IDLO WAGE MAKue A PURCHASE, ae re C.. >) = THIS HOR MAERENED PRR. 70 MER ME AND Pickle. or re Rezonane INA Fhe Linte-U. — DET: SAYPLeY Aimed Air ZRINL.PAAT-VIEWING THE Vib Pha 20 Phlove LINE-UP hoveb HAVE ZRINTED HER ZDENIEUATION a Kelowlins 7alee THE DoeumerciTion Feces WAS FEREVEL THIN, P | Wa. Spl 1 Reunbuc BEA SINGLE EYERIMIES DDENTLFLcton FROLA A ProLine, Aone Be NOL 7 dln A CilUtcrron(” ENEALIN THE INSTANCE OF A AnTéD LiNte-Le Receuke® IS THeke Abner eCENICE Bernszenl AM /LLb&AL BAerO Liné-UI2 AND AW ZMPRofee one OR ARE-THEY ONE AND THE SAME P IETHER ISA LWRBRENCE NRA CaS TUTES BN PLLEGAL Phere Loup Recenee AS OPPOSED 7 “Tose An IMPRAARONE? Mr ARE ze Lemay r7€5 OF Ect tok bad Do THEY Lie, Respecrively ° ; Quesnans Presented pa . WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS OF ALLOWABLE ZDENTUFICATION EXPERT TESTIMONY INA CASE LIKE TBUS ? 5 IT FAR/IRUER 76 SUSY ARBITRARILY RULE Jo LANA TRI SUCH WOULD) Nor BEALLONED Ar 7RIL Wirtiur EVEN Hotline A HEARIWE OM 17, of Comsin&One A MoTioy © : howby “T AN ED EXPERTS ZESTIMWY HAVE BEARING NOT ONLY ON THE ENEWINNESS es TESTIMONY ALONE BUT ALSO. ON A DETE CITES Cin THI8 cas) RES PORIS /BILIT VEST CONDLEr A CLEAN |Home Linea? RRCERRE — DESCRIBING Wi SCLENITEIC TEKS THE PRATPAS OF IMPRINTING AND StcW OCCURING IF THE PROCEDURE 15 ConbuereD mapkofeeLy ° Shop N'r TARY BEMLOWED ATIRIAL ¢ | . ; CAN A RESPONDENT INVOKE TRIAL SrRATEGY FOR AN ATORNEY EVEN NHEN TH «lier ARE 7a Dnscaueky Respomsyérermes CFA PROSECUTORS OFFLEIN THE INSrANvE OF A Line-Up PRocERURE Pate y CHANbe BY 1775 RELANIVE PaLIcé RENCTMENT WHEN Tir Paliey CHANGE DikEorty RELATES 70 A CASE ABOUT To GOTO TRIAL © WHE THA CHANEE WAS Wsrrew8h, RELATIVELY Boon! AFTER TBUT CASES LINE-UP WAS CONDUCTED , BUT BEFORE TWhr che WET eg. WW KEEARDS 70 THE SAVES OUELBURDENEL) FUBLic DEFENDERS Svarny 15 THEE AN WN RéAconABey, Mise THK EsKbcb of Roof 70 BE Mex PRoUN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTMALE OF CUNSet DAEs PE OURBORDENED NEtEcr CUSED icmrecrne’ BE SUCH A Planbeas BOk As 76 RULE, 17's FAVOR ANATHEMATA 76 THikr Sxares AES Coukrs EVEN IN REASONABLY FROVEN CASES oF SteH? ‘| 171 . (worsen “C ANIUWIY NIQIUM QRLNIQUY “KLINZIAY FAL SI YAN AINE 3777" W) pynossyy 77 PL 3 (N2WWM) NYWYON SABC ‘SMOT[OJ SB ST UOTYTJEd Sty Jo yolqns oy} st quowspnl ssoym 4.m0d ay} UI SuIpsdo00i1d ayy 07 sary.red [Te jo 4st] WY ‘eded 10A00 ay} UO eased ayy Jo UOTyded ayy UI Avadde you op seryred wy ‘ased 12A09 04} UO O8Bd ay} Jo UOT}ded oY} UI teodde saryzed [Ty [ ] SalLuVd 40 LSI