Question 1:

Xnlroducbi Q A *.Ike. lex.es Couri of Crlm'tr\a.l
disbarrad Prasad^cr,- Ralph Padly s undisclosed
Iona! m 'l scon duck RalidP in 4bai Kabdfli
<,imilarly involved m 4ha CUfTeni CQS6.unrelaied I a a. previousi case.
Appaali debidad 4kal, 4b
ploymanb ualad 4o prosaau
^rcuviad. RV. Rik+ye. AOLJ
dm
pr bCaadin^ k)ui Idas

Quasbion. Does 4b a TeXas Covr\ of £rim'inai Appeals dismiss#.) bf Pa4iltOA£rs hciLd
LorvPhab udiib 4ha'ir previous daaWio a o-Tas
a £ i m i jar da inn? By dvsmiSSiAgetaim
ciac I i mpariial 4r'ial^ Doa Process. Cifid
e-ftU&i pro4ac4'i6A of ike laul Does ik)s Sei a dangerous p needed 4
tsiabhsbad s4a.n elands 4o pro4ac4 gouammed rcpuia.4 ivas/!Pd-bvhonars haWi claims uJas hadan'iad a 44air
lode. o uto

Question 2:

XniroducboA ' Tha U-S. Suprama Covrb dacidad 4ba4 uMrran4leSS blooJ circus
art oncans4iiu4ional. Trial COonSbl mada.no dWorb 4o bade 4ha Ucconsiiiohonul
blood dmU suppressed. PM,oner UaS Cunuichel largely an ike resuih cl 4h)s
UALOnsl'nubobal blood draw.

Quasdion ■ Did 4ba Ta^aS Courl fl-T CrlrAinaJ lAppaali daa 'iSlon ; il\ corifhd unik
U.S. Supreme Loud .praaedanaa, 'improparly excuse 4Dal counsel's lad of
knou/ieJ/Jja. of reiavanl le$oJ m aiders? Tbroi^k ike Couri s ord
5ab praaadand cillcnuinoj comptai nccl of counsel io excuse ikei
-Pail uras by daclaring a bahcPln ike Qu,\i of ike t r eked ?has ii alsoers
■r OLun

Does the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' dismissal of Petitioner's habeas claim conflict with their previous decision of a similar claim?