Whether the trial court erred where the trial court denied McGauley's defense motion without weighing the potential for prejudice by other testimony on the domestic battery and first-degree murder charges, which gave the state the opportunity to admit damaging, otherwise inadmissible property evidence based on the domestic battery charge but which was not admissible to the murder charge then, failed to instruct the jury at the close of evidence that the property evidence should not be considered as to the murder charge.

Whether McGauley's trial counsel was ineffective for not moving the jury was properly instructed at the close of evidence by requesting a limiting instruction be given.

Whether reversible error occurred where the trial court denied McGauley's motion for a continuance based on possible jury bias where jurors saw him only twice and both times he had a concrete block in front of him, then the trial court sustained the state's objection to the motion without questioning the jurors about the basis for the alleged bias and failed to take any remedial measures such as issuing a curative instruction that the jury should not be influenced by reversible error occurred where a constructive denial of McGauley's assistance of counsel occurred during the cross-examination of him by the state's only witness to the shooting, and members of the defense cross-examination of him, these by the page with footnotes were outside the trial court's purview.

Whether McGauley's de novo review of his granted literally interest was because it is constitutionally adequate appellate review where the appellate court misstated and omitted facts of McGauley's case and each trial error failed to recall certain trial evidence from the record in its opinion when affidavits were submitted is conviction.

Whether error occurred where the appellate court upheld McGauley's conviction through a stark and unjustified departure from stare decisis well settled law and rulings.

Whether the trial court erred in denying McGauley's motion for a mistrial based on possible jury bias and failing to take remedial measures, and whether McGauley's trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction on the domestic battery evidence