Reasonable jurists would conclude that the State obtained Mr. Masons with insufficient evidence.

Jurists of reason would determine that Mr. Mason was denied his constltntionai right to Confrontation.

The State failed to meet its burden of proof of requisite intent and reasonable jurists would conclude that this matter should have been reversed.

Reasonable jurist would find that the trial court erred in denying the BaIson challenges without requiring the State to provide race-neutral reasons for its peremptory challenges of Black prospective jurors.

Reasonable jurists would conclude that Mr. Mason was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial for failing to object to the State's playing the entirety of Charles Evans statem cut to the police.

Reasonable jurists could debate that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the issue of the impeached. testimony being impermissibly used to convict.

Jurists of reason would conclude that the trial counsel failed to object to the jury instructions at trial , and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise such during the Appeal.

Whether the State obtained Mr. Mason's conviction with insufficient evidence