WHETHER The Denial Of Petitioner Motion To Suppress Bullets Conflicts With relevant decisions of This Court in Violation of Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment Right To Due Process? Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S.643 81 S.CT.1684 (1961)

2.) WHETHER Petitioner Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights were violated when jurors were influenced by external sources; or 2) been conducted ? Remmer V. United States, 347 U.S.227 (1954)

3.) WHETHER Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Right To Due Process was violated when there was insufficient evidence to prove that petitioner was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of Second degree murder of Mark Lioy? see In re Winship, 397 U.S.358 364 (1970)

4.) WHETHER Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Right To Due Process Was violated when There was insufficient evidence to prove that petitioner was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of Second degree murder of Amy Foster.

5.) WHETHER Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Right To Due Process was violated when State Prosecutors committed misconduct Soliciting false/ perjured testimony from State Witness Amber Thorn In Conflict with relevant decisions of this Court in Napue V. Illinois, 360 U.S.264,79 S.CT.1173 (1959)

6.) WHETHER Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Right To Due Process was violated when State Prosecutor's committed misconduct by failing To correct testimony of State Witness defective Brian Griffith. In conflict with relevant decisions of This court in Napue V. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.CT.1173 (1959).

7.) WHETHER Petitioner Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Right To Due Process And Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right Clause To Equal Protection of The law And The Confrontation Was Violated When State Prosecutor's Conspired To Deter State Witnesses From Attending and Testifying At Petitioner Trial In An Effort To Save The Parish Of Bossier Time And Money see Chambers V. Mississippi, 410 U.S 284, 93 S.CT. 1038 (U.S.MISS.1.973)

8.) WHETHER Petitioner Trial Attorney's Denied Petitioner His Sixth Amendment Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel by failing to file pre -trial motions to quash petitioner 104..U.S.CT..at_2069_(1984)

9.) WHETHER Petitioner Trial Attorney's Denied Petitioner His Sixth Amendment Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel by failing To Ask The Trial Court For An Continuance. Strickland V. Washington, 466 U.S.668,104.S.CT. at 2069 (1984)

10.) WHETHER Petitioner Trial. Attorneys Denied Petitioner His Sixth Amendment Right. To Effective Assistance Of. Counsel by failing To Defend The El Position Under the Sixth. Amendment and Fourteenth

Whether the denial of petitioner's motion to suppress bullets conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court in violation of petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process?