Whether the appellate court violated due process by affirming a conviction without properly considering uncontradicted evidence of self-defense and provocation, and whether jury discretion includes the power to return an unreasonable verdict of guilt

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; QUESTION 1 — Within the context of SUFFICIENCY of Jackson y. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, at 317 n.10, When the defense of self-defense and provocation have been put in issue and have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence established by the testimony of the defendant, and when the State failed to controvert the THEORY OF INNOCENCE, within the meaning of Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 at 122 Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 at 234, Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 at 135-139, Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 at 248 HN8, AND it follows that the Defendant has met its burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact, AND it follows that unless the prosecution offers some concrete evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the State, as explained by the Sixth Circuit in Austin v. Bell, 938 F.Supp. 1308 at HN3 at 1314-1315, then WHETHER the Appellate court is precluded from affirming the conviction by merely asserting that the jury might disbelieve the defendant’s denial of actual malice, AND then WHETHER it is a due process violation of the Fourteenth ‘Amendment to the USC to retieve the State of its own burden of producing in turn evidence that would . support a jury verdict, AND WHETHER jury discretion includes the power to return an unreasonable verdict of guilt, within the context of Jackson, 443 at 317 n.10. QUESTION 2 — When there is uncontradicted evidence of both self-defense and provocation raised by preponderance of the evidence through the testimony of the defendant, within the meaning of Engle v. ; Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 at 122, Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S, 228 at 234, Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 at 135-139, AND when the testimony of the State witnesses is impeached by a video evidence offered by the State, AND when the TRIAL COUNSEL fails to request the jury instruction on manslaughter before the verdict, but at the sentencing hearing the TRIAL COUNSEL makes a MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL on the higher charge based on evidence of provocation, AND when the TRIAL COURT fails to give a jury instruction on manslaughter sua sponte, within the meaning of Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 at 63, THE QUESTION for the Court is WHETHER it is a denial of due process of the Fourteenth Amendment to the USC for the TRIAL COURT to deny a Criminal Rule 29 Motion made at the sentencing hearing, when both defenses are uncontradicted and supported by the record, AND additionally WHETHER counsel’s failure to make a Motion for Acquittal prior to the verdict violates its duty to provide effective assistance as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the USC, AND WHETHER it is a denial of due process of the Fourteenth Amendment to the USC within the context of 2254(d)(2) for the APPELLATE COURT to invoke “INCONSISTENT THEORIES” to reject the defense of PROVOCATION to reduce murder to manslaughter when the uncontradicted defense is supported by the record? , (4)