Whether the state court denied the petitioner due process by presenting a close or misleading testimony by the state's witness and without a review of the record

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . i), he worl question 18 whether “ne Site demed Nopetieut nis Due “Process, When i+ Preserten Gosle oR vosiending Yeghmany by Ye Sieles wNwess and wWhoul p Review of Yne Retoad is Whelher Une Stole Court, Reyeclad, overlooked 02 sqnomed Appeliowt Clam of Consnsive Decral of Assshavee that prejudices) Appellant is he proceedings , wnether rt] do, oe mivolves Aad . rurensondlsle dppliemlod of Yedeea! Ind, 2). Whatner Wie Siabe Couet cleaaly erred i Hs apphcalan Comadllig Sedeadk lad, is wohdlnee Une Highest Stole Court C Cours c Cavin Appeds of Vexas) Should have couduel ad wdependest Review of ne Record 4o make @ cecisind O© Appellert Claims, under 6 Geodiusg of 00 wetachve 7 Agsiskine 0 Cowosel Clam, is cRaewt couse Be og Yo aoase an “arguable dlyestion "at Yel, due do a Silex pad iteulGeeat Record do overcome We Slog presumpiond of Comsel doin! slemley $0 Loemulale Wne issues oe “pelle Court Revieo ard Gne ial’ Obl igashow ucler fabele 39.1% (h),(K) aad! Soul, \, Maaylaad, 373 U.S, 83, 67 (1903). (