1.) The question for this Court is whether the Ohio trial court clearly erred in not conducting the three-step analysis of Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. CT. 1712, 90 L. ED. 2D 69 (1986) when Defendant had made a prima facie case of discrimination relating to the jury pools underrepresented African Americans and by a discriminatory striking of an African American juror. Relating to Ground Two.

2.) Concerning this courts Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217 (1959) does the State or government have a burden of correcting a key witnesses knowingly false or intentionally misrepresented testimony, if the testifying witness is a member of law enforcement, if that testimony so infected the trial proceedings and interfered with the jury's ability to weigh testimony or evidence offered by that witness? Relating to Ground Three.

3.) Can cumulative errors that are non-constitutional alone result in a constitutional violation concerning due process, if they deprive one of a fair trial? Relating to Ground Four.

4.) Does a trial court commit a due process violation and prejudicial error by limiting voir dire in unrelated homicide cases tried together if its time limitations removed the Defenses opportunity to effectively question and examine prospective jurors. Relating to Ground Six.

5.) Is a Defendant 's constitutional right to a fair trial violated if a State 's witness is presented as an expert to a jury even though the witness failed to submit scientific, technical or other specialized information or any sort of qualified certification? Relating to Ground Nine.

6.) Is a Defendant 's Constitutional right to a fair trial violated by the State or Government if a prosecutor grossly vouches to a jury for one of its witness 's credibility regarding a matter that was not established by testimony to secure a conviction? Relating to Ground Ten.

7.) Is a Defendant 's Constitutional right to a fair trial violated by a court concerning a jury instruction if the instruction explained "reasonable doubt " but did not explain beyond " a reasonable doubt " allowing the jury to perceive it could find the Defendant guilty based on less then beyond a reasonable doubt? Relating to Ground Eleven.

Whether the Ohio trial court clearly erred in not conducting the Batson three-step analysis for jury selection and in failing to address alleged discriminatory jury strikes