Whether the state court violated Mr. Booths 6th Amendment Rights, when it clearly showed that due to his counsels unprofessional errors and la:jk of trial strategy during Mr.Booth's trial, when the defense counsel openly admits that "he dropped the ball" on Mr.Booth's defense during the trial.

Whether the testimony of the expert for the defense was sufficient enough to render a reasonable conclusion on the facts of the fire, and the ability to determine an ignition source, other than what the Fire Marshal Baker testified on during the trial.

Whether trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to the testimony that the defendant started the fire. Was the counsel's performance unreliable, or the proceedings unfair. (see Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S 364 (1.993)

Whether Fire Marshal deviated from the standa rd protocols of the fire investigation contained in the NFPA 921, when he testified as an expert. witness during trial, and making his determination and conclusion that the fire was incendiary, absent the ability to determine an ignition source.

Whether as a comparison case, Jackson V. McQuiggiri, 553 Fed. Appx. 575 (6th Cir. 2014), Apetitioiier convicted of arson argued that counsel was ineffective at trial because he opted to forgo expert testimony to refute the states expert theory that the fire was intentionally set.

6)-Whether the Courts assessment 6g the investigation leading to a:. strategic decision "was itself reasonable." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S 510,523 (2003). And where the trial counsel articulated a resound trial strategy whereinhe was deprived of a fair trial, and the defendant believes that there was a conceivable chance of a different result.

Whether the state court violated Mr. Booth's 6th Amendment rights