Was petitioner in custody when interrogated?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . i.Was petitioner "IN Custody} when(focus of investiagation)(In presence of armed Officers)behind Locked doors){nterragated for Hours)and Told"NOT" free to Leave"? 2.Was the"Right to counsel"infringed and violated when Petitioner clearly stated "T think I need a Lawyer"? 3.Was Interrogation statement freefy and Vountarilly Givenwhen:(a) Threats to Arrest girlfriend and Nephew, w/o Probable cause,(b)Bribed with use of County Trck use If Petitioiner allowed Officers to search his own,(c) hostile enviromentand actions? 4.Was Petitioner denied Due Process when DNA recovered at scenec was only tested agianst Himself and not the National Data Base? 5.Did Trial court err in not granting a Mistrial when the Mention of Criminal Past in front of the jury, TWIGE" ? 6,Was Mention of Prior Criminal Past harmful and consi tuted reversal error? 7.Did Trial Counsel render 'In-Effective assistance of Counsel when burden with Conflict of Intrest between Petitioner and States Witness? 8.Did Said Conflict arise to the level of Harmfull’Error? ; 9.Was Petitioner demied his Consitutional ,6Th ammendment right to Confront witness agianst him , and Gompell _witness_in his favor by this Conflict? 10.Did Appellate counsél render effective when ghe failed to include _mentioion , . Of Priors and_conflict in Appellate Brief? 11iDid trial counsel render effective of Counsel by failing to object to the Colleteral Esstoppe} when the 35th District Attorney use a Statement agianst petitionet that the Prosecutor had previously said in another Court was Illegal? 12.Was Petitioner denied a Fair Trial by allowing the Introduction of"unk Science" (GPS Mapping)that was Proven unreliable and Inaccurate? 13.Was there a BRADY-Violation when police with held Witness satements from deefnse that would have created reasonable doubt in the Mindssof at least one Juror? 14. Bid Us district Court, and Circuit Court Err in refusing to hear and Look for Petitioners _Consitution claims? 15. Was Petitioner denied his Right to Relief because Lower Courts held a Pro-Se _ litigant to higher standars that Petitioner didnot address his consitutional claims in exact wording /? 16. WAS THERE A Brady Violation when Policw withheld statement of witness whom had seen and spoke to the victin days after she was reported missing, and statem,ent from Victums Boufriend who swore he talked to the victim days after she was reported missing.