Due-process,jury-instructions,provocative-act-murder,intervening-cause,malice,harmless-error

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where petitioner received a conviction based on erroneous jury instructions, were such petitioner was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process, where (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on provocative act murder by failing to instruct the jury that, in the absence of a proven intent, the provocative act had to involve evidence sufficient to not only support the assault with a deadly weapon, but must supply something more, and, (2) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the act of the shooter who killed the victim might ; constitute an independent intervening cause that absolved : petitioner, and, . ii , (3) Where the court read in the instructions a charge of implied malice of the provocative act murder which shifted the burden to the defendent of disproving malice presumed? 2. Should the State Appellate court have awarded petitioner relief in regards to the Chapman decision of the harmlessness determination? . 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in not investigating and excusing a juror who expressed safety concerns and potentially influenced other jurors on the panel? ‘4. Should petitioner have been allowed to have a continuance to retain counsel, and were such petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel? 5. Where the Court of Appeals denied petitioner the right to equitable tolling to accept his appeal due to his disability?