1. Whether (for any one and or all reasons stated herein) petitioner was denied his rights to due process and a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, when after holding a pre-trial Suppression Hearing (in petitioner's absence), the State Trial Court overruled petitioner's "motion to suppress defendant's statements", thus, allowing (after a renewed objection at trial) for petitioner's videotaped statements to be played for the jury?

2. Whether (for any one and or all reasons stated herein) petitioner was denied his rights to due process and a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, when the State presented (videotape and trial testimonial hearsay) and allowed these hearsays to go to the jury as evidence of an injury sustained by the accuser due to petitioner committing the accused act, thus, proving the changed act and an injury sustained by the accuser due to petitioner committing the accused act?

3. Whether (for any one and or all of the reasons stated herein) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, so, whether petitioner was prejudiced by trial counsel's deficient performance thereby depriving petitioner of his right to the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

4. Whether (for any one and or all of the reasons stated herein) petitioner was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel, due process rights and right to a fair trial, when petitioner was forced to go through several key court proceedings without being awarded the counsel he requested, for a period of 13 months?

5. Whether the District Court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine any one and or all of the above questions?

6. Whether, given the circumstances explained herein, petitioner's Federal Ineffective Assistance of counsel (failed to adduce evidence of mental incompetency) due process claim was procedurally defaulted for failing to meet the pleading requirements of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that were adequate to support the denial of relief, and if so, whether he has shown "cause" and "prejudice" to excuse the default?

7. Whether, if after determining the above question(s) the Court answers yes to item 6, that one aspect of petitioner's I.A.C. claims be barred for a pleading requirements failure, causes all of petitioner's I.A.C. claims to be barred for a pleading requirements failure?

8. Whether (given the circumstances explained herein) petitioner (any one and or all of petitioner's) federal Miranda, Miranda/Brady (audiotape destruction), Brady (suppression and or prosecutorial misconduct) and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel I due process claims were procedurally defaulted for failing to raise them in the State Courts that were adequate to deny relief, and if so, whether he has shown good "cause" and "prejudice" to excuse the default?

Whether petitioner was denied due process and a fair trial when the state court overruled his motion to suppress statements and allowed videotaped statements to be played for the jury