WAS THE PETITIONER DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A COMPLETE DEFENSE WHEN A WITNESS FROM THE DEFENSE INVOKED A SPECIOUS FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, AND WAS THIS IN CONJUNCTION A VIOLATION OF THE PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT CONFRONTATION CLAUSE?

WAS THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY INVADED WHEN (A) LAY WITNESSES PROVIDED EXPERT OPINION THAT THE PETITIONER WAS THE PERSON DEPICTED IN VIDEOS?

WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY ADMITTED INTO THIS PRESENT CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER THE GUISE OF AN EXCITED UTTERANCE EXCEPTION, WHEN THERE WAS TIME TO CONTRIVE AND MISREPRESENT THE STATEMENT?

WAS THE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE A KEY COMPONENT IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER?

WAS THE PETITIONER DENIED A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO A STRUCTURAL ERROR FROM JUDICIAL BIAS?

WAS THERE AN ABUSE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION TO ALLOW INFLAMMATORY PHOTOGRAPHS OVER TRIAL COUNSEL OBJECTION?

WAS THE PETITIONER DENIED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, NAMELY; FAIR TRIAL PROTECTIONS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES IN REGARDS TO THE DYING DECLARATION EXCULPATING THE PETITIONER?

Was the petitioner denied a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense?