Did a fundamental miscarriage of justice and constitutional due process violation occur when the state court improperly reviewed post-conviction claims based on new forensic DNA evidence?

I. Did A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OCCUR WHEN THE STATE COURT VIOLATED SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 29B (1995), BY EMPLOYING AN IMPROPER POST-CONVICTION REVIEW PROCESS FOR DECIDING PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM BASED ON NEW FORENSIC DNA AND IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE; IN LIGHT OF WHICH, NO REASONABLE JUROR WOULD LIKELY HAVE FOUND HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? II. DID THE STATE COURT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND DONNELLY V. DECHRISTOFORO , 415 U.S. 637 (1974), BY PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY TO UNFAIRLY INFECT THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING PROCESS WITH MISCONDUCT INTENDED TO MISLEAD THE TRIER OF FACT AND PREJUDICE PETITIONER? III. DID THE STATE COURT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND DYE V. HOFBAUER, 546 U.S. 1 (2005), BY ADOPTING AND RELYING UPON PERSONAL OPINIONS, FALSE FACTUAL STATEMENTS, AND MISSTATEMENTS OF EVIDENCE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTORNEY INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL CASE RECORD? ii Cist of parties All parties appear in the cover page case caption.