Whether it is permissible under a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a trial judge to curtail materially relevant cross-examination based on the trial judge's own determination that the witness at issue is a credible witness

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether it is permissible under a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation! for a trial judge to curtail materially relevant cross-examination based on the trial judge’s own determination that the witness at issue is a credible witness. | ; 2. Whether the federal courts below have rejected this Court’s clearly established | authority as to the standard for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Williams v. Taylor, 529 US. 362, 389 (2000). 3. Whether the federal courts below have rejected this Court’ clearly established authority as to the standard for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Miller-El v. Dretke, | 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005), Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003), and Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 528 (2003). 4. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has applied an unreasonable | standard for determining whether a Certificate of Appealability should issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), violating the requirements of Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003), Slack v. | McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). | 5. Whether, where the state of conviction has the power to transfer a petitioner to custody in another state, it is proper for a petitioner proceeding on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to list as a respondent the Attorney General of the state of conviction. See Barry v. Bergen County Probation Dep’t, 128 F.3d 152, 162-163 (3d Cir. 1997); See id., 128 F.3d at 162-163 (citing and quoting cf. Reimnitz v. State’s Attorney of Cook «(T]he Sixth Amendment’s right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is... a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 (1965). : i County, 761 F.2d 405, 409 (7 Cir. 1985)).