Does the Sixth Circuit's failure to analyze the claim in consideration of the overwhelming corroborating innocence proof in Mr. Bough's case, in conjunction with what Mr. Shears' testimony would have had on a reasonable juror in Bough's case, as opposed to relying upon the biased self preservation evidence Shears presented in his own case, contravene precedent?

No question identified. : i i . 2 Petitioner and his co-defendant Craig Shears had separate trials where, in an effort to save his own life, Mr. Shears presented Petitioner as responsible for the offenses. Shears did not testify at Mr. Bough’s trial nor did he come clean that he and another or others committed the offenses and that Petitioner was not involved. He came clean only after exhausting his own legal fights and feeling convicted whereby he sought to make it right. The state and federal courts in turn would not consider Shears testimony as newly discovered gateway evidence of innocence based on what a reasonable juror would have done in Mr. Bough’s case, but focused more on what Shears had said in his own case. Further against this Court’s precedents, neither court would consider . all of the evidence, old and new, inclusive of decisive testimony from Petitioner’s trial of which corroborates Shears new testimony. The questions ask: I. Does the Sixth Circuit’s failure to analyze the claim in consideration of the overwhelming corroborating innocence proof in Mr. Bough’s case, in conjunction with what Mr. Shears’ testimony would have had on a reasonable juror in Bough’s case, as opposed to relying upon the biased self preservation evidence Shears presented in his own case, contravene Precedent? II. Does the Sixth Circuit’s failure to address gateway timeliness based upon the immediacy within which Mr. Bough filed his challenges upon receipt of the new evidence, as . opposed to how long it took for his Co-defendant to provide such information, contravene this Court’s precedent? : I. Does the Sixth Circuit’s finding of an insufficient showing of actual innocence, by essentially requiring Mr. Bough to prove conclusive exoneration, contravene this Court’s precedent?