ory trial and aepeal ?
kgally found not ilty of br a our ?
+
plicity of the dharges in thefilins of tue oviminal informetidn ?
Did both Hhx Wiscousin count of Appusb and Suprme count
saubt ?
Dos the state counts) decisians) covflicto and erteared in
dhar fdral civuit Coouts, porsuant to 28 0.S.e. 3 2254 (d) 4) ?.
Did the district court alose its discretian wuder 2o.s.e
zzs4 e) by mavdy acepting the state covits findiny were hose
acto are in dispute ?
Doos the Sevanthe civcuits deciiono) dertins bond and he
perl, and patitionfor Rcheeviny rbane without a pvopor writer ardr
dressiny ue merits of te issuks tuct petitiorr pwsanted evcin ?
Is the sobsewant riminel pvoscution for wse seme ot
nsxeo upon ue petitioner haviny buiny velkcsd fron prison on parole
uxtanded wupervision and weving also adxconded toreopon, and extradir-
back to thhe state of wisconsin acwsed of failurk to provide updaded
vmation to wxonsin sxex offandw Registuy a dknial of due pvocss ?

Whether the Wisconsin Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner despite the state's failure to prove the essential element of the charged offense