Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's claim that the indictment was presented without jurisdiction

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Thote wW C6 @n nel} ctmenT Presehtea (nts Te LIS efeg by crming) Tia) Louth Bare Oftel ba Same tne ctment was Presented sn Tye /@6 Nf) court for trie) did Be Job ei) 2aurrhave Jurisdictan 15 FY Pet tioclon & State crimma) Zaurt nai ctneant 9 © Oo can a Non-Jurisdichan yssve hz raised atonVime — UnAhoutt env cons’deraten of bzind eXeassive? las Bere aterec bt) of incl’ ctment Pre sented Into Be IG c3yi) Lourt Vvin3 (+ Juris dichon tT FY pon IAS foee ? cue s Tia/ Counsel inefhatie Pol tot obse FG? . Petrtones was Fe cl ape LOY) cheat INN O66" ave) Court, fa The 175% er; mainal Hia) courthove Juried fon 7a enTeftain one) 18SUe Kuhn9, one Judomenton Petitioner /),07 wit if Pet-toner ulas Hed anal ory chee) i'n The. J LANA) =°UT ana hz JIE” crimbe) court s$ ruling on Petifanel /1,07 writs 73 We. [157 ending Pettioner access 46 court ans ©hshtite Contl'cyg 3; 3)ot.an 9 ‘Ne ig ¢ Btate Worn dy Kno wn The indctiment aid pot Wve eV) ) court Jutisdi tay ty TY Pek Bop ey a not Wo sone Tite M93/;'s aus Plasecutan 2 1) FeVeushG o)) Bye LVWdlence did The State prove iB Lobe : beYoinad a reasonodje doubt ? 24 adog '