Whether the District Court errored for denial of Petitioner's claim that the State Identification was suggestive, improper and the State Court conclusion that the victim's had an Independent Origin for their In-Court Identification of Petitioner was an Unreasonable Application of clear established law

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the District Court errored for denial of Petitioner’s claim that the State Identification was suggestive, improper and the State Court conclusion that the victim’s had an Independent Origin for their In-Court Identification of Petitioner was an Unreasonable Application of clear established law. 2. Whether the District Court errored for denial of Petitioner Dunaway Hearing, based on Petitioner’s arrest without Probable Cause nor Miranda warning and basing Probable Cause on the alleged sufficiency of the Identification evidence. 3. Whether the District Court error for the denial of Petitioner claim for the State denial of the Petitioner’s essential ingredient of the Sixth Amendment . Right to Counsel is that Counsel provide Constitutional Effective Assistance. 4. Whether the District Court error for denial of Petitioner Claim that the State engaged in misconduct based on witnesses perjury testimony, which were . relevant misstatements that were so egregious to tender the entire trial Fundamentally Unfair to a degree tetamount to a Due Process violation. 5. Whether the District Court error for denial of Petitioner Claim that the State Supreme Court held the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violated Due Process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment Irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of prosecution. vi