CAN THIS COURT EXTEND EXPERT WITNESS NEEDED BEYOND PSYCHIATRIST SPECIALIST BECAUSE COURTS REFUSED OFFER HANDWRITING EXPERT TO ASSIST PETITIONER DEFENSE, IMPEACH AND SHOW PROSECUTION WITNESS HAS COMMITTED PERJURY UNDER OATH?

II.
CAN THIS COURT CLEARLY ESTABLISH FEDERAL LAW HOLDING THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION IS VIOLATED ONCE PROSECUTION WITNESS TESTIFIES OFFERING COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY EXAMINATION, IS IT A VIOLATION OF CONFRONTATION CLAUSE WHEN PETITIONER IS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE PROSECUTION WITNESS 44 MINUTE TRIAL TESTIMONY, WHICH NOW DOES NOT IDENTIFY PETITIONER?AT TRIAL ON DIRECT-EXAMINATION, TESTIMONY FROM THAT OF HIS PRELIMINARY

III.
CAN THIS COURT ESTABLISH FEDERAL LAW HOLDING THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION AT PRELIMINARY-EXAMINATION HEARING IS INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, IS NOT CROSS-EXAMINATION "CONFRONTATION CLAUSE" BASICALLY A TRIAL RIGHT?

Can this court extend expert witness needed beyond psychiatrist specialist, because courts refused offer handwriting expert to assist petitioner defense, impeach and show prosecution witness has committed perjury under oath?