Did the doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel bar the State from trying Petitioner for being the lone single shooter after convicting Andres Reyes of the same crime, and did the State deny due process by precluding post-conviction DNA testing?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED There has NEVER been a case where two different persons were convicted in two separate trials -with inconsistant evidence -of both pulling the same trigger of the same gun simultaneously one time that murdered someone: ‘ (1. Did the doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel bar the State from trying Petitioner for being the lone single shooter after it had convicted Adres Reyes of being the same single shooter? (2. Where the State offers a post-conviction procedure to test material evidence for DNA and finger-prints (Penal Code 1405), did the State deny due process by precluding Petitioner from this procedure to test the murder weapon to prove he never touched it? (3. Where the State blatantly disregards clearly defined law of this Court (McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 US 383 (2013)(actual innocence gate-way test: no reasonable juror would have voted to find the defendant guilty had they known of the withheld evidence)), are they putting this Court on notice that they intend to deny postconviction procedures to the innocent? (Skinner v. Switzer, 562 US 521, 534 procedure should be created to allow a convicted person to prove his innocence)). (4. Did Petitioner meet the McQuiggin gateway threshhold test: Where . the jury was unlawfully precluded from: (A. testimony of an officer eye-witness that witnessed Andres Reyes pull the trigger; and (B. learning that a prior jury had convicted Andres Reyes of being the lone single shootér? '(5. Where Vice President (and President cannidate) Kamala Harris was personally involved in this miscarriage of justice (as a Deputy Attorney General); Did the State Supreme Court err in denying the petition (after granting informal review) solely due to the political firestorm in this very hot election year? (6. Should politics ever interfere with the freedom of an innocent man (who had been wrongly imprisoned 20 years), essentially making him a sacraficial lamb to their political endeavors? (7. Judge King precluded the 2nd jury from learning the 1st jury convicted Andres Reyes of being the lone single shooter, obtained jury instructions to assist the prosecutor (who is co-worker's son) do it here, adjudicated over both Reyes and Petitioner's PC-1170.95 petitions (which eliminated natural and probably consequnces) a decade later, denying them both on the grounds that Petitioner and Reyes were both the same lone single shooter. Is this a text-book example of embroilment amounting to partisan advocacy? ii