Whether the prosecutor's actions and trial court's instructions violated due process and warrant independent habeas review under Griffin v. California and Miranda v. Arizona

No question identified. : This Petition for Writ of Certiorari prays for this Honorable court to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and . determine if habeas relief or remand is appropriate after examination of the i . following six questions and those fairly included therein: © 1. Does a trial court's invalid jury 4nstructions or 4 prosecutor's violations ; of Federal Due Process, as were identified here by the Circuit Court, / : warrant habeas relief either independently oF when combined with the . / . ; ‘failures of counsel to act upon those violations? / : 2. Do counsel's failures, at both trial and state collateral proceedings, to * address the trial court errors or prosecutor's violations of Due Process : ; under both Federal and State laws, not only excuse the procedural default : | which was found here by the District Court, but also create, an independent : Federal Sixth Amendment violation warrant ing, analysis and relief? oe . . . 3. Is a reviewing court in a position to fully and properly examine the . ; . oo : ~ paxmful or prejudicial effects of such Due Process and Ineffective oS Assistance of Coumsel violations without the penefit of any merits analysis oO conducted or “passed on’ by a prior court, and without the complete : transcripts of the trial, after 4 certification and briefing directed to ; review only @ procedural default ‘yuling, as is the case here? . : 4, Does a reviewing court disregard this Honorable Court's holdings in Sullivan vLovisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) and thereby violate the sixth ay . + Amendment's jury trial guarantee when it substitutes itself for the jury's deliberative process after having, determined some of the jury instructions, prosecutor comments and witness testimony were impermissible and , uncorrected? : ; page ii : : 5. In cases where violative jury instructions, prosecutorial comments, and testimony were erroneously provided to the jury without curative | ; “instruction, does Federal gule of Evidence 606 (b) which prohibits inquiry ~ : into any juror's mental processes or deliberations, preclude any meaningful . determination on review as to the extent of harm or prejudice caused by : such violations, rendering those errors and violations essentially . “structural” for the purpose of analysis under such circumstances? . 6. Is a reviewing court permitted to forego “harmful error" analysis according % to this Honorable Court's directions held in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. . . 619 (1993) regarding the types of Fifth Amendment Due Process violations . . described in Doyle vOhio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) and instead choose to favor ~ . only the Sixth Amendment analysis of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ; (1984) and: ; . oS , a) If so, does such Ineffective Assistance of Counsel analysis for . : : prejudice allow the reviewing Court to forego consideration of , i ‘ relevant state laws? . ; b) If ‘not, which party carries the burden and what is the standard of . proof in cases where both Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment Ineffective Assistance of Counsel violations have occurred? a : Page ili + * ceed : |