1. Petitioner filed a timely Motion for that prosecutors listened to privileged phone call's before trial .trial after discovering new and during The trial court summarily denied his Motion based solely unsworn assertions in a response brief. Is the purposeful intrusion into the attorney-client privilege per se prejudicial requiring trial or is an evidentiary hearing mandated once prima facie evidence is introduced that prosecutors knowingly searched for and seized privileged phone calls?upon a new

2. Petitioners identification was unreliable pursuant to Biggers and Perry , however, there is now a plethora of research and empirical data suggesting change in how reliability of eyewitness identifications are determined; given this are show-up identification procedures unnecessarily suggestive, is reliability susceptible to the system and estimator variables many states have adopted, and does the allowanceper se of unreliable identification evidence undercut the fundamental fairness of a trial to a degree that demands dismissal?

3. Where the only evidence used to convict Petitioner was eyewitness identification does the refusal to proffer an eyewitness-specific jury instruction deny the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment protections, particularly where the standard witness credibility instruction does not fully or fairly charge the jury as to fallibility or the possibility of honest but mistaken identification?

4. Did these questions, along with the denial of compulsory process , plenary power to direct ones own defense, and Equal Protection, refusing to send exhibit to jury or conduct evidentiary hearings, summary denial of Motion to dismiss and Motion for new trial, and accepting unsworn assertions as evidence combine to violate Due Process, requiring remand?

Is purposeful intrusion into attorney-client privilege per se prejudicial?