Questions presented

No question identified. : Qu estions fres ented HY Ded the majority below err iw applying this Courts | deeisias W Schlup Vv, Dela and Kyles v. Lihitley 4 held that Poti Foner's compelling New eviclenea, though groseniting at the very least acolorable claim oF actual MN OLRALL, LoS | asa moter & law iasubbicient ta eveuce. his Tai lurete . that evidasen Labre the beorgia Courts merely berouse he . failed te degate oach ald overy item at ciecumshaifal evidawce | that had bean cTerad againit him af the origioal trial ? 2 Ts Hurwa reacouable probability thats gives the cumulative | tect aF the Brady and Noowe/Siglio violations it Mr Louis’ | case, the oulcomo of the trial would have boos differant ? 3) Should this Court grail certiorari, vacile. the Coult of Appeals opivieny and remand te the Coust of Appeals ot Feval court for pe sideration J Mes Lou's“argumatt of, a)indeelive aesista mee. ot trial counsel, appellate. coursed and _stahe habeas counsel ) | B) cont lict F appellunt counsel, , OQ ardabandaament oF appellast coudeel oF record y under | Marhinez vs Ryan ) United States vr Cranic and Maples wi Thomas? : ; i 4) Te there a reasonable probability that, giveal the cumulative. éNect a prosocuforial mis conduct awd use oy Falee testimony iad Ar. Louis” case, the oukeme x the trial would have baw diFerest p 5) pid it ambusit ts clear or ebvieus errary given) the eumalat-ve eFhet oF errencous improper jery charges aad ildtructiosus and biased Trial jndgay was Mn Louis davwied due process ? | | oF ung ptag mare iD~* DAF Welate. potitioneds constitutional rights uhao The court's Lebow Ruled te addrese the morits ob petitioner's clains «Fewest ction rights Vielations asd Tailed th follew stare decisis ? oe 2) Dees potit rower have viable actual “wNoeewee claims that hit amount to conetititi eval right vidlétions ? —_ | » Does the afforney + record have to sigh tho brief tv an ap pas| ? 4) aid 4 ameust t conctitichionel eights Violctons had the atlorney | who Filed abril ix petstiewer's appeal sim uttwenusly in asialerly stuoted case rep ros edits The mother F patstionser's alleged vielim ? ») Does petilewer's Brady claims & the prosecuition withhold ing evidence amoust te const td sonal rights violétions ® 6) Dees pohtioner have. viele. cloims a having a hiased teiod judge. L | that amousts Yo const thctionol rights violetious whes the judge Fesignes under ‘veel gation F sexual harressment ? ? Did it welche, petitioner's constititiowal right whon The prosecition requedhed aspociFic trial | judge? 3 e eo . 8) Did tt vie late pat itioner's conit iboteaol right whes tha trial oO _jodge. was Net the assigued judge ‘to petibiswer's case? 4) Deos the alleged vichin being coached as petitioner alleges . vie late peti tener? cout titiowal rights? 10) bid the Frial judge vielete patttienec' const tit ional rights by , o viedg improper and efronseous uty charges and idtructions as . n) Did i} volehe. patitioner's constrtttewal cights: by He prosecition’s Krteasing use ot Falco festimeny ? ; ; . 12) Did if vw late petitiewer’s cont tational rights by The perjury testimony Trem prosecutiod) wiksesses ° 13) Dees petioner's claims oF cbondon mast oF his oppellast couse) 7 x record amousit to const tictional rights vie litoms ? . . 1) Does pabrhionerss cleims x cent a st appallast counsel ameust , to constitittenval righb Violatinns T oo _ 15) Does petitioner's claims ni ineMechive astistente oF appellanit” e e , | coun sal ameust te couct ict renal rights violations $ ae, : : 12) Does potthiawes'c claims at wededive assistance & trie) counsel am oust to const :tiitiowal rights violet: ‘ews ? ") Did + vielale pet 4 joner's cond titonsal rights by th prosecsction' . fii lure to disclose that the iwvedhiigating aFicor had ad verse. discipl ‘aty hidlory ? ne . ee . 19) Con the proseciting i vestigating ater use avalias wane od her applications awd aiidavits te abtate worraitt 2 ! ) Did i+ violate. petitioner's constriction al rights whoa the