Whether a defendant's constitutional rights are violated when the prosecution fails to endorse trial witnesses as required by state law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION #1 IN A CAPITAL CASE, IS A DEFNDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED UNDER THE MANDATE OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 20 WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO A FEDERAL LAW (TITLE 18, U.S.C.A., § 3432) REGARDING THE PROSECUTIONS ENDORSMENT OF TRIAL WITNESSES THAT WILL BE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN THE PROSECUTION’S CASE-IN-CHIEF? QUESTION #2 UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 14% AMENDMENT, SUPREME COURT OPINIONS AND THE’ OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, § 20, DOES A DEFENDANT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS WHEN A PROSECUTION SURPRISE EYE-WITNESS, A FORENSIC EXPERT ARSON INVESTIGATOR AND A LAY _ PERSON GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY TO THE JURY? A. False Surprise Eye-Witness Testimony B. False Forensic Expert and Lay Person Arson Testimony QUESTION #3 DOES A COUNTY DISTRICT COURT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION’S, 67H AMENDMENT, TO INQUIRE INTO THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS, APPLY THE LAW, MAKE DECISIONS AND DECLARE JUDGMENT BY JURY TRIAL WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITHIN THAT TRIAL COURTS JURISDICTION? QUESTION # 4 : WILL THIS COURT ALLOW PETITIONER’S CONVICTION TO STAND WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, OF THE CRIME ELEMENTS AND WHEN THE CONVICTION IS BASED UPON CONJECTURE, SUPPOSITIONS, SPECULATION AND SURMISES? ‘