I. DID THE COURTS ERRONEOUSLY DENY MS. STROUD'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHEN SHE WAS CONVICTED OF SECOND DEGREE
MURDER AND THREE COUNTS OF FELONIOUS ASSAULT WHERE THE
EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS
WHERE THE PROSECUTOR FAILED TO PROVE THAT HER ACTS OR
ENCOURAGEMENT CAUSED THE DEATH OR THE ASSAULTS?

II. DID THE COURTS ERRONEOUSLY DENY MS. STROUD'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY REFUSING TO SUPPRESS COMPLAINANT
LATASHA BARGAINEER 'S MISIDENTIFICATION OF HER THAT WAS
INFECTED BY IMPROPER POLICE INFLUENCE AND SHOULD A NEW TRIAL
BE GRANTED?

III. COULD JURISTS OF REASON HAVE ACQUITTED MS. STROUD OF ALL
CHARGES IF SHE WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO PRESENT A DEFENSE WHEN THE COURTS FAILED TO QUALIFY
DR. TERRENCE CAMPBELL AS AN EXPERT WITNESS FOR HER ONLY
DEFENSE OF MISIDENTIFICATION WHO'S TESTIMONY WAS RELEVANT
AND RELIABLE?

Did the courts erroneously deny Ms. Stroud's constitutional right to due process when she was convicted of second degree murder and three counts of felonious assault where the evidence was legally insufficient and violative of due process where the prosecutor failed to prove that her acts or encouragement caused the death or the assaults?