Did the state trial court, la. appellant, la. Supreme Court and US District Court, Eastern violate the petitioner's Constitutional Rights (1st Amendment, 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution) and/or commit manifest and harmful error?

No question identified. : QUESTIONS AND ISSUES TRESENTED | }, Did the stocte trial court, ha. appellant ha. Supreaw Court and DS District cout, Eastern Violate the petitioners Constitutional Rays IM? Amendmecdt st Amendmernst and let? Amendmest ofHrie DS Coask andfor commit manifest and rrorhicl eccor yrhien Tt rues het Litter proceedings Wacluding a ‘rial applicable . a. Dd the Soke Court) La. appellant, ba. Sworeme Court and DS Dstrick Court, Eastern Violete. the petitioner's Coastivactional fights (ior Amendment of the VS Const, andlor commict manifest and harmtul evroh when it held the Confromoction Clause vias not violated and a +rial proceeded without test mony of the alleged vickm. 3, Did the State tral Court , ha. appellant | La. Supreme Court and US District Court, Eastern Violete the pettioners Constitional Right Ith Amendment and oP Amendment of the US Const anclfor Commit manifest and Marmnful error ? when held He tra l courts decision vet 40 admit the stetement by Yhe victims mother ia evidence was appe ropiecte., 44. Did the state $nal court, La, appellant, ba. Supreme Court anid US District Court, Eastern Violate the petitioner's Constctional Rights and pr commit manifest and harmful 2rror 44 mendment and eh Amerlment of the DS Const y when held the trial Court did not alouse ‘+'s discretion denying Ure pekiboner a New «rial sPelding the vietian resk mony wouldo+ peroably doduce a dillerest verdict 2. | : | 5, Did the state tal Courk, La. appellant, ha. $uprente Court and US Distek Court, Eastern Violate the pelttioner's Corstihctional aigitts {th | Amendment, 54 fmendment cend kH? Amendment of the VS Const. andlor Commit manifest and roomful apcot, when held the Sote proved every qlement of its Case loejond a reasonable doubt. fo. Did the Steele ~Nal Court, bo. appellact, ho. Supreme Court and US District Court , Eastern Violate the petitioner's Coasteretiona | Right th Amendmert of the US Const and/or commit manifest and harmful error, when held. the petitioner failed do show Treffeetive Assistance of Comtsel. 7. Del Yu DS Dstrict (owt, Eastern commit wiantest and haratal error yihen “reled” petitioner is not entitled Yo Fed! Habeas Riief on his Claim Yat te Sfate fryyal CGrurt tues without pubisdcten ¥ recon pokl ns Culing on Ye motor ¥2 Guash She Indictment j Pirteling Ho pla'a | error in the portion of the Report arid Kecommendation te which pettionet does Net opect, thot petitioner's clains be oknied anol Agmissed esith prepslice . 8. Did the DS Didrict Court Eastern and US (burt of Arpeab, Fth Grcut bepamit manifest and harn ful enrol, when aclopting the Mag Is trate Judge 5 fecommtend born that peritioner has not demonstrated — a Violetion of his lonstrtictional Aights arid Denying Certibrcate of | Appealability((o#) and requestand denial of ar Eviderrary Nearing. Lrst oF PARTIES © Onifom feptication for Cost Comiction Relief request tot bears Dockek AC 502 ~72-7 ,Criagnal District Couct Dy “sy” Dorkelte 9017K-0083 | Fourth Cireurt Court of Appeals Docket te 2d17KY-307 ; LA Syprente Court November 21,0, Rehearing gracted Teckel ak 20!-K-!Bl5 LA SuPreme Couck Supervisory Wet Pequest of Judgement which denied App. far fest | Cormiction Relief , Decket golloK-II79 — TROLE OF CONTENTS © : Table of Actronities Pee Citetions of Case , g Sotementol Sursdictor re) Coratrhitional Provisions q Stotemertr of Case 32. Wet Grant Reasons | 35 Conclusion | Payer 39 Aopendis a | | TABLE OF AUTHORLTLES CASES Stocte. V. Soell 388 3D. Ad. 754 (LA (98D). Cabfornia V, Coreen 394 ws. 149,905. C4. 1030, MeL. Ed. 3d 489] 1970) Croutord y. Woashina ton Sl us. 3b, 124 S.C (354, 158 L.Ed 177 (2004). Deis v. Washington, 547 DS. ac 830,136 8. C+. 22Gb. DG. Vv. Louisiana, 130 S. Cr. 1194, 11 L.Ed. ad 17 ( 2010). ) Lowery v. Collins, 498 F. ad 164 US? Cir. 1993). Melendez -Diaz v. Washington, 547 vS. 813,830 2006). Otfor Vv. Sept 72 F. 3d 30S Cir 1995). , ower Vv. Tefas, 38D WS. 400,85 $.Ct. 10U5, 13 L.Ed. ad 923195). Shaw VN. Cot