Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the lower court upheld the prosecutor's conduct during trial

No question identified. : Z. why jo L need te QUESTIO SO 9 go Ft N(S) PRESE x peu Hd E go thrash thes rte . 2h | zt law peoc | Hoy fort ree ons shou! EP loowwe ery Lik the eer me se gent knwos ayes fer prvren De, peer cook. j . 8 mary CFSE bees p erdnnenst b “ The jus . reversed an & Cocreghy be pore Chase Grn * f row eed ins Jovy le Seopa fa ane Srss 1 o/) S° L as cemsdyeed eR na phcew pled the oh ee raegins, eI cut chy any lr He onenedaeed avd St ites aE vA . spar sor gt the e2s, SY A werd ’ b. jd alse Lhares vo 3 mate ore pres charging 12 whent yf Tights ere palin ve ~o Pete ed ven wre prebim we 1 , nw he : atthe an 2 thy are thee aclrs os er \ (G+4 posby what 18 Ce wT COnre covet ceOM! bE gee hove a cout Dat aL pewer attended hecl Jutge bess ) pactehon 7 puede ash?” the of pony Keo pikes 56 oreo A appeal my LT helme 8. (uh tdye cL byTem y. ce . . hearin, py! ¢ q thy 4 pue Exhaust EDS wv v Jol a je. why agen todd 2 D on eo lease ? TAN pres 9 ewe MY wabeoN th why fh car Ger a ofeguete nee yo object irs Lroin 12 Lich ; 2uret [ Seen the ea , it, whe spire proscOter’ rele bead yed ; il Oh se appelbte us fellas about a ee lhally pet it Is. udge € courdt gests ai his case the Ss Whe coos role sremeer lat upheld 2 er dad cot! ct ocde’ eurty OfL%& cr a t ‘ iG. Wh? rows cube | Shr evaly, aay c2se wher if 2 @ 5 1) Jt i : . the piste < 14 has 146 CK THEZBT gud dik Veleess 45) ve co IF ce oue ls 4h ma above-rt by san KC Ong Co A ers it by ae ayy Jusics echFs c make believe ' | dep DIVA curd Case dv beg v2) cf da hy e CLI yf ha bar? Cem reed by Od) ree cape nel SEA pn 199GERG cough PIR Me om ogee f # ET MLOZ gemma demi eg.| haes gest ae ; : .