WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT'S DENIAL ON DIRECT
REVIEW OF THE CHALLENGE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR THIRD DEGREE MURDER AND
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RESULTED IN A DECISION THAT IS BASED ON AN
UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED SUPREME
COURT PRECEDENT?

WHETHER, IN A STATE TRIAL, THE TRIAL JUDGE'S MISSTATEMENT
OF TESTIMONY, AND ITS ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE VIOLATES JACKSON
V. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S. 307, WHERE A JURY BASED ITS VERDICT ON
THAT EVIDENCE, AND THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
TO FIND A PETITIONER GUILTY AS TO EACH ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

WHETHER, STATEMENTS FROM THE PROSECUTOR, AND TESTIMONY FROM
COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES FROM REDACTED PORTIONS OF A
CODEFENDANT'S CONFESSION VIOLATES JACKSON V. VIRGINIA, 443 U.S.
307, WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT WAS THE
REDACTED PORTIONS, AND WHETHER THIS SAME TESTIMONY VIOLATES
BRUTON V. U.S., 391 U.S. 123?

WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR'S STATEMENTS TO THE JURY FROM REDACTED
PORTIONS OF A CODEFENDANT'S STATEMENT IS PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT TO A LEVEL THAT IT VIOLATES PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL?

Whether the Pennsylvania Superior Court's denial of the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence resulted in an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent