Whether the appellant received a fair trial as promised by the federal and state constitutions

No question identified. : CUFSTLONS PAY FTTED : LDLD THE Appellant RECEINE A Fair TRIAL, — AO PROMISED BY BOTH FEDERAL, AND STATE , CONSTITUTION. L.DID (HE. VARGINIA SUPREME COURT SUT : THE DBOR, MOT ALLOWING VIABLE C\ATMS, ) DUE TO ERROR OF COUNSELS FAILURE TD Folia UP, PRESENTING CLATWS 2 AL ARE THE ISSUES CONTMINED LOBERALIN PERMITTED, WITHDUT ADVANCING NEW . HARE FACTS CONTAINED SUFPICTENT TD CATABLISH, AND RULE ON THE MEBTT oc Of THE CLAIMS, PROVIDING APPELLANT WITH A REMEDN 7? } S.1ANS RPREWANT SRTISFIED FEDERAL RULE of ~~ CIVEL PROCESS CD) 1.1.) MISTAKE; TNADVERTANCE; | SUAPRISE... NOISREPRESENTATION INTRINSIC: a AMdgMentt ANAS VOID, ANN OTHER REASON THAT — JUSTIFID RELIES. (o ARS THE UNTIED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR : THE FOURTH CIACUTT ovealookeD A FACTUAL | CONTENTION, WHICH INVOLVES MoRe THAN DNE Question OF EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE? T. DID THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PACTUDICE APPELLANTS ABILITN Td RAISE, OR DEMONSTARTE | | fore RDISPOST TINE. OF DEBRTABLE CLAIM, | ~ ADEQUATELY ALLOWING NOPLY 0 . CONSTITUTION RIGHTS, AT THE HNRERS CORPUS STAGE? | | ®. DID THE APPELLANTS AEFIDAVIT SUBMITTED, | AND fF LLED AS MOTION FOR BELLEF SATISFY | TNDEPENDENTLIY, A MOSTAKE, OF TINADVERTENCE IN THIS MATTER? : , 4. SHOWLD APPELLANTS HABERS CORPUS BE CONSTRUED LALBERALLY ? . ° 2 TNNEX Th APPENDICES