Whether the new scientific evidence of Parnell May's actual innocence of causing the death of Marvin Meeks is sufficient to establish that no reasonable juror would have found Parnell May guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Page Sof page. h Whether tne nad of tits uel waacene/ Ae spatcess (lala tte Stotetouelt dakiycnnelepicthh ioe Codec: Vs. U:Sy $7 9 ed 89\-Fo,G0r4) 9s ee oF Low, Accoindtngly P A. Whether {nv : OF he’ New Scientific Evidence of ParnellMexs Actual innocence oF censing the death ovals heh see bd henad Such New Set entific evidence as FiMocelikay then Vor, that, No Repsonelse minded HAR would ave-feund Pranell YY) Ady boeyendl n Reavorable dovst, ned t | ~ Whetense spe ile esate hal dk Recorded nitre Medical E.R. Records, fry CorReLation with teNewSciemtitic evidence hat He penal, to ale pentminele dado o Penal Miny diner couctngthe death Of rv Mende WMineeles, by nc Da nickson nad clAtened P “Tuller Mae buttore URES, base en He NevifMledical Qcenttic evidence Pad Re-exnnninalton of heh Wt Rentcale Meal. comity asd 8 ok Heals Hate ie death beyonda Rentonaedovelasadue = Prag or ua | ee sent thie inde the lovt-Son-cauge of denth standaad wheat, the inguntes, af Nothavelnicremen, efPerts suttictedt to cane the dest, nal ase upon te, eaistence of ea ‘ RNovneR C e YAW Gabino cite cent ly it 4 ac ndlepe lawn owned? 6, whelree, te State Paacecutfony, Samahow, Suppaested And! cae esp : evidence, tha was in Panel May caval, fy acondenee wlth Brady {fateetal shandwedst 7, Whethaa te Ginte Procecutfonts forensic expert witvess, Dr, Erichion, made andoave Trwvelid Forensic TesttwoniiaL Evidence Aopingr Hhanell May, sthis Ocoben 63031 gueyteial, inv Accondance with Hinton Vs, Absbeme,571 US cae Dr lOBT087 ec) 2. B. thle, he nC rg ith dhe ik Pages to ei wehRdetnntexculp “Priomy ew denden, tat wane, He MedfenLE-R:Rtcoreds thet wad material totais Case, Cea ete abl vel on un Aline (vey til. G0 ther verdict g flhy, WAS ASSURED, vealed att han 1 Ble aie proitt esontedngeftagly fo ni the CeROA, Thema we ie 1. Whethes, therefs,e peasovable proba sy thot dosent he eretag het lag | CONTENURNGE ode: Questfons Preserihad : eam aPrHE. _ “Peeursild hove hod,p personable daveb nespastha offlanny “Mariel Wacles, 0s Dre Belek soy cil i i cat , RO. Whether the cleinitant Paewalll@ Nlay’s,eighi-+o have Gompel “fy proceso | | voBinestes the E.NN1, Spencer. Tehgon, and, Da Siames Rice,ath eons | | | defedendisFavor, yet they Falla to appene atthe Cotdaee Gro00, \ueyttsl had my folated Pepin te deena 6Adrrendmnenttoitie \)vited Gintes Conelton ASC] M1, whether Das Boteksouls ons apathetin Yung Ing iciehreu lends Fepeat | Bad oR-Sunport be oval Renton edbaly hile ooniseh becleont te | aaah bl ih nh Vac Whether.tints Cavity as Frwias Bro(de, nihe Reso heGupeaelnat a tel ~ Stakes, fy Rulel, Hat’ Ceationndt Will beg aan oily | ‘For Compelling RenBans avhene Paenell May covtends, of actual fivnocavee BRAY? | -Nidation, Was Fenn ich loyp IN Scaneage of Fate, avd ite Delval cone fed | bebucan she Aiatitns Sormewe aval’ dente fon, awel HS iE 13. Whethaa Patol Maucobld oe canyichidefoe Conta etl itt ec ealnacilbel be bruce i ais swath Reon eMeioa. Garni | 14, Whether, JnckeauStindaad tux Reviewing suPlefency oPeulene whose | } New lean por cain Se Boanclihin aati | Rion hagaing han He Fuck have been beyeal n Renibvalve ded & ey iolaaye Br State Appellate Cautth excep u pany pect ulfiient fe cond ice | Federal Gucae, thate, eon 4aleectack Could have tvid Reetiendtal elementy othe ort’ heyenal a P ARIS sWhetheiar Yea Deslattes LO ar Tarmparcal cote ehentencau dence Wyaldedtg, Te pmeced Aone lee memes feo mush he Greenelocerat | lle ioe one naa cots ferimpe eaten usb re ; | furinfal Oclebeab AR SCR) tgtrbstiauctat eoefenctarAGh go oS I, | sang itt dea nw jereonaingly’P | uf al parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. WA parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of ; all