1. To convict, the statute required the medical provider to be engaging in "sexual
contact " which was "medically recognized as unethical or unacceptable ". The
prosecution failed to find and file a medical expert to testify, and Heiney had
multiple experts available and willing to testify that the examination was
"medically recognized " as both "ethical and acceptable ", and not "sexual ". Trial
counsel tried but failed, because the filing was ruled untimely, to file notice of
Heiney 's medical expert witness. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of
Appealability (COA) standard that improperly reviewed the merits in
contradiction to this Court's precedent when it denied Heiney a COA to obtain
merits review of his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective
for failing to file a notice of expert medical witness timely?

2. The principal issue raised on direct appeal was that the evidence was
insufficient to convict without any medical expert testimony on the part of the
prosecution that the treatment was "sexual " contact that was "medically
recognized as unethical or unacceptable ". Did the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome
Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard in contradiction to this Court's
precedent when it denied Heiney a COA to obtain merits review of his claim
that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the
claim that trial counsel was ineffective for its failure to file on time Heiney 's
medical expert witness notice before the court 's deadline?

3. The State had numerous Brady violations including withholding undisclosed
deals with Heiney 's adversarial witnesses as well as the state 's interviews with
medical experts that indicated Heiney 's conduct was medically recognized as
both acceptable and ethical. The State Courts put, the already determined by
this Court unconstitutional burden of discoverability on Heiney, by stating that
Heiney was responsible for discovering the Brady materials at the time of trial
because the materials existed during his trial, even though Heiney was
unaware of the undisclosed deals with witnesses as well as the medical
professionals ' interviews existence. Did the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of
Appealability (COA) standard that also improperly reviewed the merits in
contradiction to this Court's precedent when it denied Heiney a COA to obtain
merits review of his claim that Brady violations resulted in a constitutionally
unfair trial?

4. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted that the Baisden exception, that
"common knowledge " could circumvent the State statutory requirement for
expert "medically recognized " testimony, was a matter of State law
determination and in turn not for Federal Habeas review. This ignored that the
State Court of Appeals acknowledged there was no "common knowledge " about
the conduct in question (hence eliminating the Baisden exception), however,
then the State Court of Appeals violated the confrontation clause by using
medical expert testimony, which was not presented at Heiney 's trial, from a
completely unrelated case to Heiney 's case (both in presentation of medical
problems and in the medical specialty examining the patient) to fulfill the
"medically recognized " portion of the statute to uphold the convictions. This
confrontation clause violation is a Constitutional violation available for hab

medical-malpractice-defense