1. Mr. Merrick alleged he was denied his constitutioncl right to testify in his trial in both the guilt and aggrauation phases. In the guilt phase, Mr. Merrick recond of the contents but bewcre of Rule 1l, attorney Sanctiuns Trial counsel of his right to testity in the aggrawation phase The State courts held that Mr. Merrick must verbally notify the court prior to the close of the deferise of his desire to testify and because he fauled there was no error. The case thus presents the followung suestion

Did the Arizona stade Courts err in finding Mn. Merrick was not entitled under the constituticin to testify at tricl even though he attempted to make arecond of his desire to testify ; the court's denial cand threatened t sanctions on tricl counsel; Trial counsel's Knowledge Merrick wanted to testify and counsel refused to call him to testify.

2. Mr. Merrick alleged that communications between himself volated Mr. Merrick's due process rights, The case Thus presents the following guestion:

Did the State court errin finding that Mr. Merrick was not rules and lauos to prohibit privileged evdence from a tricl.

3. Mr. Merrick alleged thct his constitotional rights to dwe process ineffective assistance of counsel clains and thad it was impossible to comnit the offenses while he wces in a federal Correctional faclity cand a trial luitness testified to stecling Mr. Merrick's identity to cammit the crimes himself. The court found there was no colorable clain and the court did nat abouse it's discretion The case Thus presents the following guestion

Did the stade Counts err in finding that Mr. Merrick's constitutiunal rights to Due Process cand Effecture caunsel wces not iclated when he demonstrated that he was factually innocent of offenses for wshich he wsas convicted.

4. Mr Merrck alleged thct he was denied effective appellate clenied a fair trial when the prosecution committed numerous acts of misconduct boy introducing material testimony they knew or should have known was false The Arzona courts found that appellcite counsel exs not ineffective, Thus this case presents the Following gueston:

Did the Arzona courts err in finding that appellate counsel wcs not neftectie when the prosecution presented materially Known false testimony to the jury to obtcein a conuictien and appellate counsel did not rause the cloiin on appeccl.

Did the Arizona State Courts err in finding Mr. Merrick was not entitled under the constitution to testify at trial even though he attempted to make a record of his desire to testify and the court's denial threatened sanctions on trial counsel