There has NEVER been a case where two different persons were
convicted in two separate trials -- with inconsistant evidence -- of
both pulling the same trigger of the same gun simultaneously one time
that murdered someone :

(1. Did the doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel bar the State
from trying Petitioner for being the lone single shooter a;.ter it
had convicted Adres Reyes of being the same single shooter?

(2. Where the State offers a post-conviction procedure to test material
evidence for DNA and finger-prints (Penal Code 1405), did the State
deny due process by precluding Petitioner from this procedure to
test the murder weapon to prove he never touched it?

(3. Where the State blatantly disregards clearly defined law of this
Court (McQuiggin v. Perkins , 569 US 383 (2013) (actual innocence
gate-way test: no reasonable juror would have voted to find the
defendant guilty had they known of the withheld evidence))
they putting this Court on notice that they intend to deny post
conviction procedures to the innocent? (Skinner v. Switzer , 562
US 521, 534 (2011) (post-conviction procedure should be created
to allow a convicted person to prove his innocence)).are

(4. Did Petitioner meet the McQuiggin gateway threshhold test: Where
the jury was unlawfully precluded from: (A. testimony of an
officer eye-witness that witnessed Andres Reyes pull the trigger;
and (B. learning that a prior jury had convicted Andres Reyes of
being the lone single shooter?

(5. Where Vice President (and President cannidate) Kamala Harris
was personally involved in this miscarriage of justice (as a
Deputy Attorney General); Did the State Supreme Court err in
denying the petition (after granting informal review) solely
due to the political firestorm in this very hot election year?

(6. Should politics ever interfere with the freedom of an innocent
man (who had been wrongly imprisoned 20 years), essentially making
him a sacraficial lamb to their political endeavors?

(7. Judge King precluded the 2nd jury from learning the 1st jury
convicted Andres Reyes of being the lone single shooter, ob
tained jury instructions to assist the prosecutor (who is
co-worker's son) do it here, adjudicated over both Reyes and Petitioner's PC-1170.95 petitions (which eliminated natural and
probably consequnces) a decade later, denying them both on the
grounds that Petitioner and Reyes were both the same lone single
shooter. Is this a text-book example of embroilment amounting
to partisan advocacy?

Did the doctrines of collateral and judicial estoppel bar the State from trying Petitioner for being the lone single shooter after convicting Andres Reyes of the same crime, and did the State deny due process by precluding post-conviction DNA testing?