Whether the state courts' determination of the facts of this case was objectively reasonable?

No question identified. : 1 | A yetions Prosenled A (oo 1) gksthens | Because His Case resettle. onimpotaal |___guedtion 03 Lau) andéhe porharak night. og | | he peonle “summary dismissal ixtheloae.og | | _paliZirnerk., serious gllegélions. would aphearLe wl Be cut. o3 Line. cth prior decisions og this tori ? | a 2) ghchen: s|__ Aeticteonon was denied a gundamarital pus pores 14 2 trala Lo le tte Court S the. Cov. | eee 16 Ore eg indippiiad, Latls praseples Arte. ol|___Sthe Couvil procoading? " ol w|3) Zuhethen: all Amendment precludebthe CovitLand puny grom ” . . 4 o oll regecting uneoilweveiled Leslimeny hil is rst. | »||__ improbable in Lsole, rte disregard mdlerial _| u|__eacks thal are indiapttahly nb ablished bylhe | 25 4 pL: Ted Zo ; g 08 Both the Prods 3 26 and Zhe. Jape dant twto Goth Co gine Lhe bose. ol ralenial fail Jo betwe Seyordadov? | 2 , | teddiong Protepbeh ined Qe 4) gutter? Ltt 4s a pure quetlion og Law dubgodt Lo Konia | Anche. Jniled Sates Supreme Covi trhonthe | || only reahenable dispute is cverthe, Legal p1geet | Nand Aucemighoance og unclipuiled pacts? —__| od oe W|5) cohen? ere ee 13 4hu2 thal the verdict 6 onawsul ape ul Cortduany Lethe. conginmad, unterlebled pois oe heared 2b Sevicienl porgormance and _| |_ Auld Lnogeective assiftenteoe Courbe ta | l|___ okehion 09 Appellate. ue Procass Riabls.? | en ol Consenting adults. have a conbiltional right al As aregage in UnresLigled seyualcondrd! | ol ect aah then andthe settheinoumn bourdriak | oll and telermina whdl Ls parmisgible iphaie oll gerteonal xelilionthing. 2? A wo 2) whether: || Shale Cowils délermindlionog the gaitsoglhis. | oll rhe wed ob eclivel, pvessonabla? |