WHETHER, CONTRARY TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS, THE TRIAL COURT, MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS, MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT ARBITRARILY DENIED PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL, USED INAPPROPRIATE BASES FOR "JURY ACQUITTED CONDUCT" TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR OWN "INDEPENDENT FINDING OF DEFENDANTS GUTCT TREE RGHED 5 GUILT," IMPEACHED THE GURY! VERDICT, WHERE TH c 0 TH Au", (REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP, SEARCH), BEFORE THE JURY TO DETERMINE, IN L , CONDUCTING A EVIDENTYARV HEARING, SUSSCQUENTLY RESULTING INTHE JURY'S ACQUITTAL. 4TH, STH, 7TH, 44TH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTION.

II

WHETHER, CONTRARY TO THE "JURY'S ACQUITTED CONDUCT", COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO: AND/OR THE STATE COURTS" ABUSED TTS DISE S ABUSED IT'S DISCRETION, FAILED TO REQUEST/ENTER A DIRECT VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL UNDER THE "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE", ONCE THE TRIAL COURT PLACED THE "QUESTION OF LAW, (REASUNABLE SUSPICION TO STOP SEARCH), FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE INCHED OF e N CIEU OF, CONDUCTING A EVIDENTIARY HEARING, SUBSEQUENTLY RESULTING IN THE JURY'S ACQUITTAL. 4TH, 5TH, 6TH, 7TH, 14TH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Whether the trial court, Michigan Court of Appeals, and Michigan Supreme Court arbitrarily denied petitioner's right to a jury trial, used inappropriate bases for 'jury acquitted conduct' to substantiate their own 'independent finding of defendant's guilt,' and impeached the jury verdict