Whether the Law of the Case Doctrine is an issue in this case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED L Whether the Law of the Case Doctrine is an issue in this case since two Judges have made rulings concerning the Constitutional Rights of the Petitioner. Ds Whether failure to apply the “Castle Doctrine” to the facts of this case is an error of law anda violation of Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights essentially denying Petitioner the right to present a defense. 3. Whether preclusion of Petitioner’s “use of force” Expert constitutes an abuse of discretion and an error of law denying Petitioner the right to present a defense in violation of his Constitutional Rights. 4. Whether the sentence imposed violated Defendant’s Constitutional Rights by ordering medical and psychological treatment for Petitioner based on hearsay reports, obviating Petitioner’s ability to cross-examine. 5. Whether the sentence imposed constitutes life imprisonment in violation of the intent of the legislature. 6. Whether the reassignment of the case from Judge Learner to Judge Byrd was justified. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued hs Whether the rulings of Judges Learner and | Byrd concerning the admission of video evidence violated Defendant’s Constitutional Rights where police failed to preserve original evidence, chain of custody was not preserved and evidence was admittedly altered to present it to support the theory of the prosecution. 8. Whether Petitioner’s rights were violated by prosecution destruction, deletion and dismissal of evidence that could prove to be exculpatory. 9. Whether the testimony of police that conflicts with reports and prior testimony should have been stricken from the record so that they would not be considered by the Jury. 10. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not allowing Petitioner to present re-direct testimony to address points raised in cross by the Prosecution. 11. Whether sequestration of Defense co-counsel was an error of law and deprived Petitioner of his 6th Amendment Right to counsel of his choice. 12. Whether Petitioner’s right to counsel was violated when he was detained at Police Headquarters (the Roundhouse), without access to his attorneys, for four days prior to arraignment and | iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued prior to Petitioner being read his Constitutional Rights or Mirandized. 13. Whether Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights were violated by failing to provide Petitioner copies of exhibits being referred to by the prosecution during his cross-examination. 14. Whether Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights were violated by the failure of the Judge to give jury instructions concerning the Castle Doctrine and selfdefense and the fact that they could find Defendant not guilty. 15. Whether the Judge’s conclusory statements at sentencing, based on hearsay documents, constitute | an abuse of discretion and a violation of law. 16. Whether the testimony of the medical examiner should have been stricken in part and whether it demonstrates a further failure of the prosecution to obtain exculpatory evidence by not obtaining a toxicology report. 17. Whether the Judge demonstrated extreme bias for the prosecution in concluding that Petitioner’s “warning shot” was “illegal”, directing the Prosecution to “find it (the crimes code)”...”and develop the argument further”. Where the iv QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued Prosecution failed to separately charge Petitioner with any crime for the discharge of the weapon, whether Petitioner's right to notice and the opportunity to be heard and present an appropriate defense were violated, and the resulting adverse and confusing charge to the jury prejudiced Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights, denying him a fair trial. 18. Whether Petitioner ever made a “confession” is in issue. Whether Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights were violated when the Court’s decision to remove the involuntary manslaughter charge from the Jury was based on his decision that the Petitioner made a “confession”. 19. Whether the rulings of Judges Lerner and Byrd are erroneous with regar