I.
DID THE LOWER - COURT CLEARLY MISAPPLY UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN A MANNER THAT DENIED
FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE, WHEN IT USED A SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE TEST RATHER THAN THE TEST ENUNCIATED IN BRECHT
V. ABRAHAMSON ,507 US 619,622; 113 S Ct 1710;123 L Ed 2d
353 (1993) I'O DETERMINE WHETHER A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL
ERROR HAD A SUBSTANTIAL AND INJURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE
ON THE JURY'S VERDICT?

II.
WHETHER THE TEST IN BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON ENCROACHES ON
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN'S REVERSIBLE ERROR DOCTRINE
REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN AIDING AND ABETTING
INSTRUCTION, BECAUSE WHEN . DETERMINING WHETHER THE
ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL AND
INJURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE ON THE JURY'S VERDICT, THE
BRECHT TEST DOES NOT CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAD
THE ERRONEOUS EVIDENCE BEEN EXCLUDED THE TRIAL JUDGE
WOULD HAVE NEVER GIVEN THE AIDING AND ABETTING
INSTRUCTION, AND THEREFORE A DIRECTED VERDICT WOULD HAVE
BEEN APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS THE STATE
CONCEDED THEY COULD NOT PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
PETITIONER FIRED THE FATAL SHOT, AND THE STATE RELIED
HEAVILY ON THE ERRONEOUS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS THEORY
THAT PETITIONER MUST HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED?

Whether the lower court misapplied Brecht v. Abrahamson standard by using an incorrect sufficiency of evidence test that denied fundamental justice in reviewing a constitutional trial error's impact on a jury verdict