QUESTION 1 - Within the context of SUFFICIENCY of Jackson v. Virginia. 443 U.S. 307, at 317 n.10. When
the defense of self-defense and provocation have been put in issue and have been proved by a
preponderance of the evidence established by the testimony of the defendant, and when the State failed
to controvert the THEORY OF INNOCENCE, within the meaning of Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 at 122,
Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 at 234. Holland v. United States. 348 U.S. 121 at 135-139. Musacchio v. United
States. 577 U.S. 237 at 248 HN8, AND it follows that the Defendant has met its burden of showing that
there is no genuine issue of fact, AND it follows that unless the prosecution offers some concrete
evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the State, as explained by the
Sixth Circuit in Austin v. Bell, 938 F.Supp. 1308 at HN3 at 1314-1315, then WHETHER the Appellate court
is precluded from affirming the conviction by merely asserting that the jury might disbelieve the
defendant's denial of actual malice, AND then WHETHER it is a due process violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the USC to relieve the State of its own burden of producing in turn evidence that would
support a jury verdict, AND WHETHER jury discretion includes the power to return an unreasonable
verdict of guilt, within the context of Jackson, 443 at 317 n.10 .

QUESTION 2 - When there is uncontradicted evidence of both self-defense and provocation raised by
preponderance of the evidence through the testimony of the defendant, within the meaning of Engle v.
Isaac. 456 U.S. 107 at 122. Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 at 234, Holland v. United States. 348 U.S. 121 at
135-139, AND when the testimony of the State witnesses is impeached by a video evidence offered by the
State, AND when the TRIAL COUNSEL fails to request the jury instruction on manslaughter before the
verdict, but at the sentencing hearing the TRIAL COUNSEL makes a MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL on the
higher charge based on evidence of provocation, AND when the TRIAL COURT fails to give a jury
instruction on manslaughter sua sponte, within the meaning of Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 at
63, THE QUESTION for the Court is WHETHER it is a denial of due process of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the USC for the TRIAL COURT to deny a Criminal Rule 29 Motion made at the sentencing hearing, when
both defenses are uncontradicted and supported by the record, AND additionally WHETHER counsel's
failure to make a Motion for Acquittal prior to the verdict violates its duty to provide effective assistance
as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the USC, AND WHETHER it is a denial of due process of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the USC within the context of 2254(d)(2) for the APPELLATE COURT to invoke
"INCONSISTENT THEORIES" to

Whether the appellate court violated due process by affirming a conviction without properly considering uncontradicted evidence of self-defense and provocation, and whether jury discretion includes the power to return an unreasonable verdict of guilt