Question #1: Whether petitioner's Original trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of U.S. Const. Amn. 6 when counsel failed to pursue suppression of Petitioner's confession because Petitioner invoked a request for counsel during Petitioner's police interview, and because he requested to end all questioning.

Question #2: Whether the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with Fare v. Michael G.C., 442 U.S. 107 (1981), Loikin v. Solem, 116 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1983); Michigan v. Mosely, 423 U.S. 96 (1975), Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), Smith v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1446 (11th Cir. 1988); Smith v. Wainwright, 871 F.2d 609 (11th Cir. 1989); Stare v. Bailey, 884 F.2d 738 (Kan. 1989); State v. Wright, 477 A. 1265 (Vt. 1984); and U.S. v. De Coster, 487 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

Whether petitioner's original trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of U.S. Const. Amn. 6