Gary L. Workman v. Jason Kent, Warden

Was Petitioner denied his right to compel witnesses when counsel failed to subpoena an expert that had found exculpatory evidence and this evidence was found in the police and prosecutor files? Was counsel’s performance deficient when counsel failed to examine the police and prosecutor files and conduct an independent investigation after a retained expert found exculpatory evidence in these files and did this deficient performance prejudice Petitioner? Was Petitioner prejudiced where counsel’s deficient performance rendered the state court record insufficient and precluded from federal review and can Petitioner overcome the bar of Harrington v. Richter and Cullen v. Pinholster, when it is this ineffectiveness of counsel that obstructed the preservation and conservation of the state court record? If the State utilizes evidence outside the state court record, is the bar of Harrington v. Richter and Cullen v. Pinholster, overcome under 28 §2254(d)(2) when the use of such evidence resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. Do voir dire statements by the defense open the door to allow the State to bypass fair notice and the balancing test of relevancy concerning the introduction of inadmissible evidence under state and federal law?