Why Dod the majority below err in applying this Courts deeisias W Schlup Vv, Dela and Kyles v. Lihitley 4 held that Poti Foner's compelling New eviclenea, though groseniting at the very least acolorable claim oF actual MN OLRALL, LoS asa moter & law iasbufficient ta eveuce. his Tai lurete . that evidasen Labre the beorgia Courts - merely berouse he . failed te degate oach ald overy item at ciecumshaifal evidawce | that had bean cTerad againit him af the origioal trial ?

2 Ts Hurwa reacouable probability thats gives the cumulative | tect aF the Brady and Noowe/Siglio violations it Mr Louis' | case, the oulcomo of the trial would have boos differant ?

3) Should this Court grail certiorari, vacile. the Coult of Appeals opivieny and remand te the Coust of Appeals ot Feval court for pe sideration J Mes Lou's"argumatt of, a)indeelive aesista mee. ot trial counsel, appellate. coursed and _stahe habeas counsel ) | B) cont lict F appellunt counsel, , OQ ardabandaonment oF appellast coudeel oF record y under | Marhinez vs Ryan ) United States vr Cranic and Maples wi Thomas? :

4) Te there a reasonable probability that, giveal the cumulative. éNect a prosocuforial mis conduct awd use oy Falee testimony iad Ar. Louis" case, the oukeme x the trial would have baw diFerest p

5) pid it ambusit ts clear or ebvieus errary given) the eumalat-ve eFhet oF errencous improper jery charges aad ildtructiosus and biased Trial jndgay was Mn Louis davwied due process ?

oF ung SUESTION(S).PRESENTED ptag mare iD~* DAF Welate. potitioneds constitutional rights uhao The court's Lebow Ruled te addrese the morits ob petitioner's clains «Fewest ction rights Vielations asd Tailed th follew stare decisis ?

oe 2) Dees potit rower have viable actual "wNoeewee claims that hit amount to conetititi eval right vidlétions ? —_

| » Does the afforney + record have to sigh tho brief tv an ap pas| ?

4) aid 4 ameust t conctitichionel eights Violctons had the atlorney | who Filed abril ix petstiewer's appeal sim uttwenusly in asialerly stuoted case rep ros edits The mother F patstionser's alleged vielim ?

») Does petilewer's Brady claims & the prosecuition withhold ing evidence amoust te const td sonal rights violétions ®

6) Dees pohtioner have. viele. cloims a having a hiased teiod judge. L | that amousts Yo const thctionol rights violetious whes the judge Fesignes under 'veel gation F sexual harressment ?

? Did it welche, petitioner's constititiowal

Questions presented