The Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) in this case eventually went to prison
for planting DNA evidence in another murder case, as he's alleged to have
planted DNA evidence in Cook's case. Mr. Cook testified that the State's "star
witness (Hornbacher) was the murderer, even though no accomplice jury instruction
was given for his defense, creating a structural error(s). After DNA tests
came back late with mixed results and couldn't exclude Hornbacher, a request for
a continuance to further investigate Hornbacher was denied, one example of abuse
of judicial discretion effecting the trial outcome.
A prosecutor's husband, a private attorney, filed a civil lawsuit against
Cook, Ford Motor Co., and Bridgestone/Firestone during the trial, which ended
in a payout settlement paid by Mr. Cook's family, monetizing the prosecution
for the corrupt couple. Cook believes this misconduct led to a number of other
instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Mr. Cook illustrates how his lawyers
were ineffective throughout the proceedings and/or had major conflicts of
interests resulting in the constructive denial of counsel.

Question #1: Did the lower courts commit reversible error by refusing to order
evidentiary hearing surrounding a pattern of misconduct and evidence planting
by its' Crime Scene Investigation Supervisor, whom was convicted of planting
evidence in another murder case(s), OR IS IT JUST A COVER-UP BE STATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND/OR PROSECUTORS EMBARRASSED THAT ONE OF THEIR "OWN" HAS BEEN
CAUGHT PLANTING EVIDENCE? Is this a denial of due process of law contrary to
the 5th and 14th Amendments and/or ineffective assistance of counsel per the
6th Amendment, to not properly investigate or ask for a mistrial, not hire a
DNA expert because Cook didn't "have enough money", nor motion the court for
funds for a DNA expert and/or not properly assign/argue the prejudicial and
illegal conduct on direct or postconviction appeal, nor move for a mistrial?

Question #2: Did the courts below commit reversible error not recognizing it
is either ineffective assistance of counsel, a violation of due process, an
abuse of judicial discretion, and/or law enforcement/prosecutor misconduct to
not allow a continuance of a murder trial when late-requested DNA testing on
the State's "star witness" - alleged to be the murderer - comes back with
MIXED RESULTS less than a week before trial that CAN NOT EXCLUDE HIM FROM BEING
THE CONTRIBUTOR TO THE DNA FOUND UNDER THE VICTIM'S NAIL(s), BUT CAN EXCLUDE
THE DEFENDANT? AND DEFENSE ASKS FOR A CONTINUANCE TO COLLECT/test more evidence
since law enforcement/prosecutors never sought a search warrant, EVEN IN THE
FACE OF OVERWHELMING PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE TO DO SO, undermining Cook's 5th,
6th and 14th Amendment rights?

Question #3: Did the lower courts err in utilizing a procedural bar contrary
to Court precedent, to avoid ruling on the merits of multiple conviction reversing
claims, considering the State set into play the variable(s) resulting in the
erection of the procedural bar, by appointing CONFLICTED postconviction counsel
whom they should have known had an existing conflict, whom intentionally
sabotaged the case, contrary to Cook's rights

Did the lower courts commit reversible error by refusing to order an evidentiary hearing surrounding a pattern of misconduct and evidence planting by its' Crime Scene Investigation Supervisor, whom was convicted of planting evidence in another murder case(s)?