Whether the new credible and compelling evidence of actual innocence, combined with the alibi, constitutes a 'truly persuasive showing of actual innocence' sufficient to warrant freestanding habeas relief

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | In this case, despite having an alibi, the Petitioner was convicted of Murder in the First Degree, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and sentenced to | life without parole. There was no direct evidence, eyewitness or confession _ | against him. After trial, he was the first inmate in New York to ever have a | 440.10 Hearing conducted based on freestanding Actual Innocence and vast amounts : of Ineffective Counsel. | . The State Court found that he did not prove his innocence by "clear and convincing evidence", and that all of his lawyer's decisions were "based on trial strategy". The questions presented to this Court for review are: . Regarding Actual Innocence: ; 1. In this wholly circumstantial case where the Petitioner has alibi, and after | trial presents: 1) substantial new exculpatory witnesses and evidence showing | that two other men actually committed the crime, 2) new forensic experts who proved that the prosecutor and her experts misrepresented the ONLY evidence | connecting the Petitioner to the crime, and 3) new fact witnesses and evidence proving that the prosecutor's unsupported claims of motive, opportunity and were completely false and fabricated, does all of this ; | new credible and compelling evidence, combined with the alibi, constitute a | "truly persuasive showing of actual innocence" pursuant to Herrera v Collins | sufficient to warrant freestanding habeas relief? | 2. Did the District Court commit error in not reviewing Petitioner's Actual | Innocence claim under the Schlup v Delo "gateway" standard, in order to review | two Ineffective Counsel claims it found to be procedurally defaulted, so that . ALL of counsel's errors, ALL of the evidence and the credibility of the trial | witnesses could be considered as a whole and re-weighed, in order to ensure that a Constitutional violation did not result in the conviction of an innocent man? } Regarding Ineffective Counsel: ; , 3. Does defense counsel violate the requirements of Strickland by failing to present any of the substantial exculpatory witnesses or evidence showing that , two other men actually committed the crime, where his decision not to present it . was not based on strategic reasons, but was based on his "mistaken belief" that all of the exculpatory witnesses lied in order to get deals for themselves, and : on his "legal misunderstanding" that he had to prove the two men's guilt to the jury? ; . 4. When defense counsel in an entirely circumstantial case is indisputably given ADVANCE NOTICE that his primary defense will likely be unsuccessful because the . prosecutor is presenting experts who's conclusions are adverse to the defendant and will directly contradict his testimony and innocent explanation for the only evidence connecting him to the crime, does counsel have "a duty" under ' Strickland to at least consult with an expert in order to make an informed decision as to whether he can challenge the State's experts’ conclusions, corroborate the defendant's testimony, or support the defense he is presenting? 5. Is Due Process and the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment violated when jurors make "quite a reaction" to a prosecutor's impermissible. inference to the jury that a non-testifying eyewitness saw the defendant at the crime scene, ; and is counsel ineffective for failing to object to or correct this critical misstatement and Constitutional violation, when he admittedly knew it was false? 6. Was counsel ineffective for knowingly allowing the prosecutor to present false and unsupported claims of motive, opportunity and when he had available witnesses and evidence that clearly proved the prejudicial claims were false and fabricated? : . ii 7. Are a defendant's 5th and 14th Amendment rights violated when the police impermissibly use a court-ordered search warrant for his palm prints as a ploy in order to seize and interrogate him without proper Miranda warnings, and is counsel .ineffective for failin