Whether petitioner was denied his right to due process when the trial court failed to follow the law of the case doctrine from a previous appeal, denied his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and denied him a new trial despite proving his actual innocence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE FROM A PREVIOUS APPEAL IN THE SAME CASE. 2. WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; WHEN THE COURT RULED THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN HIS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEW EVIDENCE. THIS SAME EVIDENCE WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED NEWLY DISCOVERED IN A PRIOR COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN THEIR REVERSE AND REMAND IN THE SAME CASE. 3. WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; WHEN HE WAS NOT AWARDED A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE FACT, THAT HE HAD PROVEN THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY AN INNOCENT PERSON. 4. WHETHER THE MISCONDUCT BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY REQUIRES THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE AWARDED A NEW TRIAL. i. PARTIES The Petitioner is Marcus Blalock, pro se litigant, and is seeking relief from the judgment entered in the courts by the parties below named as the Respondent(s). The Respondent(s) are The State of Ohio, et al, Michael O’ Malley, Attorney for the Plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, State v. Blalock 2017-Ohio-2658 i.