Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on proximate causation in a criminal homicide case and whether conflicting state court assessments of evidence constitute a due process violation

I. Whether Trial Counsel Was Ineffective, Under Strickland . For Failing to Follow Through With Brown's Causation Defense Theory By Failing To Request a Jury Instruction On Proximate Causation? Is The Causation Element In A Criminal Offense Restricted To Matters Of A State's Interpretation Of State Law Or Is It A Due Process Requisite Under The Fourteenth Amendment And Under Jackson?II. III. Under The Sixth And Fourteenth Amendments Of The Constitution, When There Is Another Group, Other Than The Defendant's Group, Similarly Situated In The Criminal Offense That Caused The Death Of The Victim But The Prosecution Fails To Resolve Which Group Fired The Killshot, Does An Instruction On Proximate Causation Become An Essential Element For A Jury To Select Whether The Accused's Group, Alone, Is Criminally Responsible For The Underlying Offense Charged In This Causal Quandary? IV. Under The Fourteenth Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution, Where The Prosecution's Burden Is To Prove, At The Least, That The Killshot Came From The Accused's Group, Does Proof That The Opposing Shooters May Have Killed The Victim Instead Sufficiently Invokes A Causation Dispute Warranting A Proper Jury Instruction On The Element? V. When Does Proximate Cause Becomes An Essential Element In A Criminal Homicide Offense, Under Jackson v. Virginia ? VI. Where TCCA's Initial Assessment Of The Core Underlying Convicting Evidence On Direct Appeal Substantially Conflicts With That Same Court's 2 Subsequent Assessment Of The Core Underlying Convicting Evidence After Revisiting The Trial Proof On Collateral Review, Do Conflicting State Court Opinions On The Convicting Evidence Sufficiently Qualify As A Due Process Reversible Error Related To IATC Causation Claim “Or” To The Insufficiency Of The Convicting Evidence Under Jackson? Whether The District Court And Appeal Court Applied A More Strict And Inflexible Version Of This Court ’s Rhines v. Weber Standard When Denying Stay Of Proceedings In Order To Exhaust Unexhausted State Remedy?VII. 3