Whether the lack of established federal law or precedent should preclude relief for a defendant when there is no clear constitutional violation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . (1) If aruling must be contrary to established Federal Law for A Defendant to receive relief, When there is no established Federal Law or Precedent to follow, how should the matter be handled When theres on Clear Constitutional Violation? (2. ls the Standard Petitioner failed to meet, a higher Standard than Bruton actually Requires? As the Illinois Appellate Courts ; acknowledged a Constitutional error occurred. (3. What Specifically is a Proper limiting Instruction for dealing With Bruton Violations? (4. Did Prosecutors, by telling Jurors “This Defendant made a Videotaped Confession, Confessing to killing Copeland and ‘ laying out essentially the same facts’ | Just told You” Practically apprise Jurors to speculate “Content” or “Substance" of Nelsons Confession? (5. Does the ‘Substance’ or ‘Content’ of an non testifying Codefendant -Confession, has to be ‘heard’ or ‘Read’ by the Non declarant Jury to be harmful, Prejudicial or Influential, or could an “Recapitulate", Reference, Paraphrase or Synopsis, do Just as much harm Prejudice and have Influence on a Juries Verdict? (6. Did Petitioner meet the Criteria Set out in the United States Supreme Court Precedent for a Bruton Violation? (7. Was the Illinois Appellate Courts, rejection Petitioner Strickland Claim Contrary to or Involved on Unreasonable application of Federal law, or Rested on an Unreasonable Determination of the Facts, Where ’ Counselor failed to object to Inadmissible Guns and Testimony of an __ unrelated Shooting. outside the Cook County Court Building Involving Co Defendant Nelson. (8. Was Petitioner denied his Due Process Rights? When Prosecutors used The Inadmissible evidence of the Unrelated Shooting Provided by Tykima Walker, To Promote anc. Theory of fear and Terror as a Social Issue, Through out their Closing Argument as a Focal Point. (9. In view of the multiple errors, did Petitioner fail to Show Counsel Performance was deficient and that Petitioner was Prejudiced by the Counse! Performance? Or did The Illinois Appellate Court base their decision on an unreasonable determination of the facts Where. Counsel admitted to the Judge. SA564. "| don't pay attention to whats Going on, and Prepare an Argument.