WHETHER THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN LIMITING MR. STEEN ABILITY TO ESTABLISH WITNESS JOSEPH FARLEY'S BIAS WHERE MR. STEIN WAS PREVENTED FROM INQUIRING INTO FARLEY'S ARREST AND CONVICTION OF PROSTITUTION AND SOLICITATION IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WERE PROBATION VIOLATIONS AND OTHER POSSIBLE PENALTIES, AND WHETHER FARLEY'S CASES OR SENTENCING HAD BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER HE HAD TESTIFIED AGAINST PETITIONER WRIGHT AND WHETHER STARE DECISIS WAS FOLLOWED AND WHETHER PETITIONER'S SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN STATE APPELLATE COURT CONFIRMED CONVICTION?

WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE CROSS EXAMINATION WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH PERMITTED TO ASK A PROSECUTION WITNESS ABOUT ARREST AND CONVICTIONS, IS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING A RECORD FROM WHICH TO ARGUE BEFORE THE JURY THAT THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY WAS MOTIVATED BY HELP HE WAS RECEIVING FROM THE PROSECUTION TO GET HELP WITH HIS PROBATION VIOLATION AND A LIGHT SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES?

WHEN COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY DAWN HOLTZ FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE DEFENSE THAT JOSEPH FARLEY WAS GOING TO BE SENTENCED AS A PAROLE VIOLATOR, KNOWINGLY USED PERJURED TESTIMONY AND FAILED TO CORRECT PERJURED TESTIMONY WAS BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83, (1963), KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) and BANKS v. DRETKE, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) VIOLATED ALONG WITH THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE?

Whether the court of common pleas erred in limiting Mr. Stein's ability to establish witness Joseph Farley's bias