1. Where petitioner received a conviction for premeditated attempted
murder and attempted manslaughter of two individuals, were such that
petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to Confront and Crossexamine witnesses, where
(1) the state never disclosed all discovery relevant to
'impeaching the testimony of the law enforcement officers,
and
(2) the trial court allowed the non-disclosure of personnel'
files and reports after in-camera review pursuant to
Pitchess Motion? .

2. Where the state failed to fulfill their obligation to obtain
all evidence that was impeachable, and relevant to guilt or
innocence to meet the Brady requirement, and that there must
be prejudice flowing from the states failure to disclose
exculpatory or inculpatory evidence of reports and records relevant
to the incident in question?

3. Where the state prosecutor failed to uphold his ethical
obligation as an officer of the court in utilizing his position
to protect the rights of the petitioner from a fundamentally unfair
trial amounting to prosecutorial misconduct violating due process
of the Fourteenth Amendment, where
(1) the prosecutor knew that the California Highway Patrol .
was obligated to turn over all reports and records, and
tactical reports relévant to the incident?

4. Should petitioner have been allowed to present newly discovered
evidence that was not available during his trial that is a
relevant proffer to call into question the legality of the
conviction in the underlying criminal case?

5. Does not such violations of the Constitution require more
than remand of the case, but therein constitutes the reversal
as an acquittal where Double Jeopardy attaches?

Where petitioner received a conviction for premeditated attempted murder and attempted manslaughter of two individuals, were such that petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to Confront and Cross-examine witnesses