Whether the Fifth Circuit's application of Schulp's claim was unreasonable when newly presented evidence was not heard at trial and would qualify as newly discovered evidence in other Circuit Courts

1. WHETHER THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL'S APPLICATION OF SCHULP'S CLAIM WAS UNREASONABLE WHEN THE NEWLY PRESENTED EVIDENCE WAS NOT HEARD AT TRIAL AND WOULD QUALIFY AS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THE 3 RD,7 TH and 9 TH CIRCUIT COURT ■ OF APPEALS ? 2. WHETHER WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER DEFENDANT INFORMS OF EXCULPATORY PHY< SICAL DISABILITY OR NOT AND SUCH INJURY COULD PROVE INJURY, WAS IT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN LIGHT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT'S IMPOSED DUTY FOR COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE IRRESPECTIVE OF DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS ? 3. WHETHER IN THE CONTEXT UNDER SCHULP WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL IS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO DISCOVER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT WAS READILY AVAILABLE OF THE PETITIONER'S ACTUAL INNOCEF ENCE THE EVIDENCEONCE OBTAINED ,DOES IT CONSTITUTE NEWLY DIS COVERED EVIDENCE ? i ,