1. WHETHER THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL'S APPLICATION
OF SCHULP'S CLAIM WAS UNREASONABLE WHEN THE NEWLY PRESENTED
EVIDENCE WAS NOT HEARD AT TRIAL AND WOULD QUALIFY AS NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THE 3 RD,7 TH and 9 TH CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS ?

2. WHETHER WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO
INVESTIGATE WHETHER DEFENDANT INFORMS OF EXCULPATORY PHY<
SICAL DISABILITY OR NOT AND SUCH INJURY COULD PROVE INJURY,
WAS IT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN LIGHT OF THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT'S IMPOSED DUTY FOR COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE
IRRESPECTIVE OF DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS ?

3. WHETHER IN THE CONTEXT UNDER SCHULP WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL IS
INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO DISCOVER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
THAT WAS READILY AVAILABLE OF THE PETITIONER'S ACTUAL INNOCEF
ENCE THE EVIDENCEONCE OBTAINED ,DOES IT CONSTITUTE NEWLY DIS
COVERED EVIDENCE ?

Whether the Fifth Circuit's application of Schulp's claim was unreasonable when newly presented evidence was not heard at trial and would qualify as newly discovered evidence in other Circuit Courts