1. Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, when trial counsel failed to investigate the only evidence that could have changed the outcome of the trial, which is the ramification of post ischemic priapism surgery.

2. Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, when there was insufficient evidence to convict, because at least one element could not have been proved based upon incredible testimony, which is an erect penis that could point straight, the State s witness s could not have seen, felt, or experienced what they testified to, which is an essential element necessary for conviction.

Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, when trial counsel failed to investigate the only evidence that could have changed the outcome of the trial, which is the ramification of post ischemic priapism surgery