DID THE TRIAL COURT INTERFERE WITH PETITIONER'S STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR JURY TRIAL WHEN SHE REFUSED TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT THIS COURT'S RULING IN TANNER v. UNITED STATES, 347 U.S. 721 (1954), WHERE THERE WAS EXTRANEOUS CONTACT WITH A DELIBERATING JUROR, AND WHERE THE COURT, BASED UPON AN INADEQUATE RECORD, ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CONTACT, THE IMPACT OF THE EXTRANEOUS CONTACT UPON THE JUROR, THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF THE CONTACT UPON THE DEFENDANT, AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES WERE NOT PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE?

(2) Did the district court err in failing to support the jury's guilty verdicts and the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)?

(3) Was there insufficient evidence to consider the import of the newly discovered evidence which went to support petitioner's claim of actual innocence?

Whether the trial court interfered with the petitioner's state and federal constitutional rights to a fair jury trial by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), where there was extraneous contact with a deliberating juror, and where the court, based on an inadequate record, erroneously determined the circumstances of the contact, the impact on the juror, the prejudicial effect on the defendant, and did not permit all interested parties to participate