Whether the State court's resolution of Crowell's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for bail at a capital offense preliminary hearing under 42 U.S.C. §2254-5 and Strickland v. Washington was contrary to clearly established law.

Whether the 7th Circuit erred in holding that the State court's decision on any deference under 42 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) was contrary to clearly established law.

Whether the Federal Court's expansion of the State court's decision on any deference on the merits of Crowell's claim that trial counsel failed to discover or investigate trial counsel's failure to present a statutory affirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) and Strickland v. Washington was contrary to clearly established law.

Whether the 7th Circuit has erroneously expanded the Court's precedent regarding capital conviction proceedings.

Whether the state courts resolution of Crowell's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failing to advise of an affirmative defense was contrary to and/or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established law under Strickland