I., THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, TEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AND STATE TRIAL COURT ALL HAVE DECIDED AN IMPORTAN7 TEDERAL QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER INSTRUCTIONAL ERROR OCCURRED IN A WAN THAT CONTUCTS WITH THIS COURTS CLEARUJ ESTABLISHED HARMLESS-ERROR PRECEDENTS.

A., The. Counts Anbitnanily Picked A Pee.-tod It Believed The Victim No Longee Posed A Tkeeat To Petitionee.

B. \ The Counts ImpenmissiLty Tocused On The Sufficiency Of The Evidence -i

C. | The Distnict Count Made Impenmissible (Inedibility Detenm.inatJ.ons.

D. ; Tailed To Considen The Related Newly Discovened Evidence In Context With The Ennpneous £uey Instnuetion. {

E. i The Hanmless-Ennon Tindings Below Substantially Impained Petitionee's Right To Pnesent A Complete Defense .i

T.i The Effect Of The Ennon In Relation To All Else That Happened..,

Q.\ The Sixth Ciecuit Panel Did Not Conduct A Hanmless-Ennon Review.,

Whether instructional error occurred in a way that conflicts with the Supreme Court's clearly established harmless-error precedents