Whether a 'mere modicum' of evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Court of Appeals decide an important federal question -whether a "mere modicum" of evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction -in a way that conflicts with decisions of this Court by finding that the evidence in this case (which was a "mere modicum") was sufficient to sustain the conviction, where this Court held in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), that a "mere modicum" of evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction? 2. Does a state court's invocation of a state procedural rule to deny a federal constitutional claim bar habeas relief on that claim where the state court based its invocation of the state procedural rule solely on a full adjudication of the merits of the federal constitutional claim and a finding that the federal constitutional claim Lacked merit? 3. If such a procedural rule does bar the habeas claim, is it debatable among reasonable jurists whether Petitioner has satisfied the miscarriage of justice exception to the procedural default by showing that the victim's daughter told police that a third party threatened to kill the victim, along with the weak evidence of Petitioner's guilt? 4. Was Petitioner's constitutional right to a jury trial violated by the trial court's admission of the testimony of a witness identifying Petitioner in a photograph, where the witness had not seen Petitioner for months and where Petitioner's appearance at the time the photograph was taken had not changed i | and thus the jury could have made any decision regarding identification itself? 5. Was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to present to the jury the third party's threat to kill the murder victim in this case? 4 4 we ii