1. Whether the Law of the Case Doctrine is an
issue in this case since two Judges have made
rulings concerning the Constitutional Rights of the
Petitioner.

2. Whether failure to apply the "Castle Doctrine"
to the facts of this case is an error of law and a
violation of Petitioner's Constitutional Rights
essentially denying Petitioner the right to present a
defense.

3. Whether preclusion of Petitioner's "use of
force" Expert constitutes an abuse of discretion and
an error of law denying Petitioner the right to
present a defense in violation of his Constitutional
Rights.

4. Whether the sentence imposed violated
Defendant's Constitutional Rights by ordering
medical and psychological treatment for Petitioner
based on hearsay reports, obviating Petitioner's
ability to cross-examine.

5. Whether the sentence imposed constitutes life
imprisonment in violation of the intent of the
legislature.

6. Whether the reassignment of the case from
Judge Learner to Judge Byrd was justified.

7. Whether the rulings of Judges Learner and
Byrd concerning the admission of video evidence
violated Defendant's Constitutional Rights where
police failed to preserve original evidence, chain of
custody was not preserved and evidence was
admittedly altered to present it to support the theory
of the prosecution.

8. Whether Petitioner's rights were violated by
prosecution destruction, deletion and dismissal of
evidence that could prove to be exculpatory.

9. Whether the testimony of police that conflicts
with reports and prior testimony should have been
stricken from the record so that they would not be
considered by the Jury.

10. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not
allowing Petitioner to present re-direct testimony to
address points raised in cross by the Prosecution.

11. Whether sequestration of Defense co-counsel
was an error of law and deprived Petitioner of his 6th
Amendment Right to counsel of his choice.

12. Whether Petitioner's right to counsel was
violated when he was detained at Police
Headquarters (the Roundhouse), without access to
his attorneys, for four days prior to arraignment and
prior to Petitioner being read his Constitutional
Rights or Mirandized.

13. Whether Petitioner's Constitutional Rights
were violated by failing to provide Petitioner copies
of exhibits being referred to by the prosecution
during his cross-examination.

14. Whether Petitioner's Constitutional Rights
were violated by the failure of the Judge to give jury
instructions concerning the Castle Doctrine and self-
defense and the fact that they could find Defendant
not guilty.

15. Whether the Judge's conclusory statements at
sentencing, based on hearsay documents, constitute
an abuse of discretion and a violation of law.

16. Whether the testimony of the medical
examiner should have been stricken in part and
whether it demonstrates a further failure of the
prosecution to obtain exculpatory evidence by not
obtaining a toxicology report.

17. Whether the Judge demonstrated extreme
bias for the prosecution in concluding that
Petitioner's "warning shot" was "illegal", directing
the Prosecution to "find it (the crimes code)"...''and
develop the argument further". Where the
Prosecution failed to separately charge Petitioner
with any

Whether the Law of the Case Doctrine is an issue in this case