Whether the imposition of a RACC Stun belt with secret instructions to compel testimony, alter testimony, and remain silent during trial infringed upon and/or violated the Petitioner's rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether the imposition of a RACC Stun belt with secret instructions to compel testimony, alter testimony, and remain silent during trial infringed upon and/or / violated the Petitioner's rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th . Amendments and is inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure. a. The reviewing court reviews the imposition of stun belts under the abuse of discretion standard, plain error standard, and structural error standard. There is a presumption of prejudice. US. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 4.993) and U.S. v. Iglesias, 553 F.3d_150, 159 (3rd_Cir. 2008) and U.S. v. Harbin, 250 F.3d 532, 544 (7th Cir. 2001) 2. Whether the trial court violated the petitioner's 6th Amendment rights by unnecessarily forcing him to wear a stun belt during trial; without the establishment on the record (a) the reasons for the severe restraints; (b) facts _ about the operation and accidental discharge potential of the Stun belt; (c) guidance for the petitioner about the conduct which would precipitate discharge by a sheriff; or the availability of a less severe form of restraints; and the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. a. The reviewing court reviews the error under the abuse of discretion : standard, plain error, and structural error standard. U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. W 725, 731 (1993) and US. v. Iglesias, 553 F.3d 150, IS§-(8rd_ Cir. 2008) and U.S. v. Harbin, 250 F.3d 532, 544 (7th Cir, 2001) 2 . 3. Whether the suppression of impeachment or exculpatory evidence upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, | irrespective of good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. ‘ a. The reviewing court reviews the error under the abuse of discretion . standard, plain error standard, and structural error standard. U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993) and U.S. v. Iglesias, 553 F.3d 150, 159 (8rd_Cir. . 2008) and U.S. v. Harbin, 250 F.3d 532, 544 (7th Cir. 2001) 4. Whether the Closing statements by the prosecution were improper conduct, a 6th Amendment violation and a reversible error. . ; a. The reviewing court reviews the error under the abuse of discretion standard, plain error standard, and structural error standard. U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993) and U.S. V. Iglesias, 553 F.3d_150, 159 (8rd Cir. 2008) and U.S. V. Harbin, 250 F.3d 532, 544 (7th Cir. 2001) | 5. Whether the Commonwealth of Virginia has denied the Petitioner access to the Court and violated the Ist Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. a. The reviewing court reviews the denial of access to the court under the abuse of discretion standard, plain error standard, and structural error : standard. There is a presumption of prejudice. U.S. v. Olano, 507, U.S. 725, ‘ 731 (1993) and USS. v. Iglesias, 553 F.3d 150, 159 (8rd Cir. 2008) and U.S. v. Harbin, 250 F.3d 532, 544 (7th Cir. 2001) 6. Whether the Court denied the right to the assistance of, counsel for the defense : during all proceedings and violated the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution. : a. The reviewing court reviews the error under the abuse of discretion. *. standard, plain error standard, and structural error standard. U.S. v. Olano, 507, U.S. 725, 731 (1993) and U.S. v. Iglesias, 553 F.3d_150, 159 (8rd. . Cir.2008) and U.S. v. Harbin, 250 F.3d 532, 544(7th Cir. 2001) 4