I Did the federal distf\ct_ccuov commit-clear error. Whan it deemed Mr.
secVvonj2.zs4 compulsoryprocess viola-
ti_QO_cV&lmaoJbe_anAn cognizable
lAC-J^Lee^JsJre^eraLcQ fopaisoc^
process claim and held that a denial ofa material witness only
amounted to a stave law error ?

2. What is the correct Ocbab'AwaVWe standard of review Vo be applied
When,as in Mr- Reed's ease, the statG^rcWcWiog court finds that
a„denied. witness was relevant Vo foe credibility of the complain
ing WlVoessfher daughter S.d and law enforcement; that 5. had,
admitVedly, lied about Key aspects of her version of events; that
S- Was impeached as havi ng Void Detective, Montenegro that
Vine police changed her story*, and that the record supports
the possibility that the mother could give material testimony
regarding police manipulation of S.'s testimony, but, Cather
Vbao reverse under Valenzuela-Vernal, chooses -to conditionally
reverse and require Wtr- Reed Vo prove, Vo the lining of the of -
fending trial ^udgc, that the mother Would, have given material
testimony, Vo be reviewed under the state Watson standard ?

<3. bid the federal district court commit clear error.wheo iV proceduPally
barred Ntt- Reedf com challenging trial court's failure Vo hear In is
motion to replace appointed counsel , based upon a state rule
Vbat Was not shown to be consistently and regularly applied?

A. Xf_a trial court has refused to hear /Vtc- Reed's motion to re
place appointed counsel , at a time when JVlr • Reed wishes to ob-
^ect-tCLunauthorized sentencing and motion for new trial ,
What IS tbc-correct Remedy When IVtc. Reed has been diligent
In his atVempts to develop the record?

Did the federal district court commit clear error when it deemed the Reed's properly presented 28 USC section 2254 compulsory process violation claim to be an unrecognizable state-law challenge?