A Whether the Trial Court violated Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation by Admitting the deceased Neg wiehad" diary— Which Contained testimonial Statements ~ (i Hhovk afford lag paki fionee Cy OPPportuoity For Cross~ okamination ( Crawford \y, Uoe8h rag bern SL a he Pec _De4-3 Mgnets lec) Gad Motion ros Mew vel Counse| sere Vrehied-ive inter Sleiclland Vs WeShiagdon, Ylolo v5, og (ew) by Sealing to chellenge Jounns Vistele), fo object' to hecrSay avidece Gad Dudicial Corblicts (uped 203 ad OES nconplebe Arie! no Gruhow Vi Gad to Sais < TPA Vyolattuns.

3. Whether Vne Jesel cork violated @.c.Gut 2= ¥-S71_by Malting Tm Proper preTodicis| Oamats Tegarding The evidence ond Pelftionc

t. Whether the eis] Cove Tmproperly admitted Cesidog| hewsey by Failing do Op worth Mess Gad Matesalit, Vader | OCGA 2\~5-%97.

3, Whe}hac Khe evidence Wes TaSufFicie oder SachSdn Ye uieginia YY3 US. 307 | Aggroated batter Under ©, UGA \Q-S~24 @),

Whether the Indiana Court violated the Sixth Amendment right to Confrontation by admitting deceased witness's hearsay statements without affording petitioner opportunity for cross-examination