1) Whether the State's alleged egregious misconduct in both planting evidence in Petitioner Moore's bed to wrongfully tie him to the homicides, and by deliberately destroying exculpatory DNA evidence related to blood found on a knife near the first chronological victim's body, violated this Court's authority in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637 (1973) and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333 (1988), respectively holding that outrageous governmental conduct and the purposeful destruction of evidence by police, if proven, require dismissal of his case with prejudice?

2) Whether Capital Petitioner Moore's 6th Amendment right to be represented by competent trial counsel was violated due to substantial Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) as defined by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct 2052 (1984) and Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 170, 134 S.Ct. 1081 (2014) due to former counsel's failure to not only properly investigate and present readily available and compelling 3rd Party culpability evidence as to the original suspect, yet in his failure to call a single witness in Petitioner's defense, and which resultant abdicated defense was most substantially comprised of the cross examination of State's witnesses to purportedly frontload mitigation as to his alleged addiction, suggesting to the jury that he was guilty in this case and constituting such grave ineffective assistance of counsel or misconduct so as to rival that which occurred in McCoy v. Louisiana 584 U.S. 414, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018)?

3) Whether Moore's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment federal constitutional right to a fair trial was violated by the lower Arizona court because he was not competent at the time of his 2001 guilt phase jury due to diabetic ketoacidosis caused by the Maricopa County Jail's refusal to properly feed him nor give him prescribed insulin medication?

Whether the State's egregious misconduct in planting evidence and destroying exculpatory DNA evidence, combined with petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate and present available third-party culpability evidence while improperly frontloading mitigation suggesting guilt, and petitioner's incompetence at trial due to untreated diabetic ketoacidosis caused by jail negligence, violated petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial in this capital case