WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD CONSIDER IF THE INTRODUCTION OF AN AUTOPSY REPORT WHICH WAS PRESENTED AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE BUT NOT TESTIFIED TO BY ITS AUTHOR, VIOLATES THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION?

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT COUNSEL REPRESENTATION FELL BELOW AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS AS ARTICULATED IN STRICKLAND AND WAS THAT DECISION CONTRARY TO THIS COURT'S HOLDING?

Whether the introduction of an autopsy report which was presented as substantive evidence but not testified to by its author violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution?