1. The indictment was defective because it did not adequately inform the petitioner of the state's theory of attempted first degree murder. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.)

2. The petitioner's jury did not fairly represent the community. (Doc. No. 1 at 6.)

3. The petitioner was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court's evidentiary rulings. (Doc. No. 1 at 8.)

4. The trial judge engaged in improper communication with the jury. (Doc. No. 1 at 10.)

5. There was insufficient-evidence to support the petitioner's conviction. (Doc. No. 1 at 15.)

6. The petitioner's sentence was improperly enhanced and is excessive. (Doc. No. 1 at 17.)

7. The petitioner's right to due process was violated by the cumulative {2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8} effect of various errors of the trial court and trial counsel, and by prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. No. 1 at 19.)

8. The petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, appellate counsel, and post-conviction counsel. (Doc. No. 1 at 21.)

9. The petitioner's multiple indictments and convictions for various theories of murder violated his right to due process and the prohibition against double jeopardy. (Doc. No. 1 at 23.)

Was the indictment defective?