Whether the state court's admission of 'vouching' testimony from a police officer expert witness violated the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \. Ave Ae “voles of evidence" Vous? Loe 2. \s a due process consthdy hon (stor 14) rigkl recognited 95 +h veloted right presented under "plain error renew ? 3. Con appellate counsel's Sailuve lo veseuw sebmibbed claims vordh clendt ~ Prior be Submission of, .apper\, foarte Suyreme coord , ow Bygert 2 of might, conseizrehe Cause ond. erejNidice under ShrickKitnd review % 5. Do Prosecutors repeated use of questions Which evolee Vouchring res POnses from he Sates wyrness ( 2 seroned police olfyer pon expe . a+ Lesritying oct Avil) Violate due process (6 4 14 Amend mnt) under plan error vevvew, or Pprosecerbarial misconduct ? Me Vous Wosecsdor's — A vemerrt \gclsler ng |Nouching Low Ake expert vorttness, the INFerView , answers of We Stotds main ‘woriness, constitute prose cutariel misconductd, er a viclotien of due Process under 5 “plain error” review, where only cvrcum sxanerve\ eyibente vs presen ; le. ME the kote Supreme Couvd does not spech@'\y stete Aves AK decision is besed on a proceduval default, whch should be identified by the Cord ex prar ly, ond Didtvicy Conv moalees & Funding of « procedure | default, shoulda pet noner be granted an ooyver yunity te vespond Yo he Dotter Gourks de novo) assess ment ? A. Can camulatwe error loy proseurhon constitute prosecu toy 2) miscondtuck , or vielate Ave process Under “plain error” yevreus ? %. dan counsel's consishend fadluve to use ob yee ons fvev oa \ + on moron ) violo\e Ane GP Arend mend § Streldeand slanderd or “olan error” review? o) for \erding queshons or grosecurtons? | qurendes F Avelrhulness? o \ Lor Vouching | bolstering oy stoids uovtiness’ ? e\far 1m proper burden ohifhing on oye--hyial sence? W\s the AEDPA Consityuronal under the suspension claus, 3s Whe coonivy ih verter under invesion , ney under rebellion? lo. Can +e Supreme Couvd addvess the areaud court solid between on vouching desrmony and Fed Bale AOtT 4% relehed state laws? Cre. ara ath 4 oth Greutts) 1, On SAvvcklond claims of neffective counsel, where & ceytivare oe Procable Cs \Ssued, dd Are Districk Court (neovvectly vatey pret vwherhav the Hendard WIS wit, as the Stote Wobers Court wors Ae lest rergoned idacmund -has Goods neh a summary dis Qocitnon? 2. Nader“ grevosing proessieria\ norms", such os May eis, does ——counsel_yecome “mnefbect we foe _qreseitang va _c\osiin. ores summed “Se dows 2. + 7” et wit ‘ : __stondavd of reasonableness” be _sdentifved Joy thy” Rules of 2 _furdence” which are dually reviewed toy de United Shres —__Srereme Cosict prior bo enslvipe vents tin lava, oo vwe\\ ag ___ where Siates__choose _-bo_ewcarame snr tually sc umiler laws “under sipiurt.? : . — nen es . . . _ een . at ¢ ° . ut 7, ye a . 2 * ue ty eet ED yeh Syecey x Casgiwrre wea . cows e Vo