Did the Arizona State Courts err in finding Mr. Merrick was not entitled under the constitution to testify at trial even though he attempted to make a record of his desire to testify and the court's denial threatened sanctions on trial counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Vo Me. Meccion alleged he was demed hic constitutional mghtto teshity i his trial tn both the gril and aggravation plnaseS. Tn the quilt Phase , Mr. Merricl, : , NokGed his teal counse | shat he Wanted to testy tn his defense and wrote a one | Page nate to the judge 46 wows Mne court of (nis ceswe. he Todge started to read t the teller then sad she world not and told defense counsel he could make a, record of the contenis but beuere of Rule Ml Lathown Sanchons = Teel counse| | made no vecor and did notcall Memicls to testify oboe Ad he wfinw Mende of Ws vtenk fe fest ta the aggrauctin phase. The Stale courts held that Me. Merrick ust verloally note tine court prur to the close of the de€nse of © us deswe-te festity and because lnc Ruled Here Was ne enroe, The Case us presents Ane Bllauing gyestion 4 . . Did tne Arizona Stale Couels ex nN Finding Me. Mewnck, Gas not ented onder tne conmidutwin to tes tity at trial even Ancagh he attempted to make arecorcd of Wis des we to test ty sAne court's demal cad thyecened SGNCAWMS OM tetal coUmsel s TRal counsel's Knousledige Meare wantedh tee en x) te stchy aud counsel refosedd ta call Mun feo testy, | ; 2. Me. Mecerck alleged tat communications between humse = dnd Ws clergy. Plrystcien and counselor Were privileged Under Arizona — lass and evecluded from trial and when the court aluwed them if ; Molated Uv. Memias's clue process wightss The case Thus presents the ; | ; Follousing, gestion 3 : . ; : i Did the state couct err wm Finding that Mr Merrick Was not ewlitled onder the consktuton toe Ure tine. sferbe. ts fallan dts voles caind lcauss to prolilort privileged” evidence from a tral. 3. Me Mereicds, alleged thet lis comsttctonal wrawts 45 doe. process | ona eKechve counsel Was Vulated When he demeanstoated NUMercus | nefectwe assistance of counsel clauns and -thed ‘th Was wpossible +o | Cammivt ne offenses While he was tn a Federal Correctional eclibey i Cnr atneal wrness testified fe slealiag Mv. Ahem identely to | Com the cvmmes WimselE . The couck found there was no colorable i CLAW Gnd the court aid net abuse HS discretinn . The case. Thus presents the followin gpestent cansitotinal eras fe Duc Process aml Effects Cumsel Woas | wot Goleted When he. demonstrated Ancek ne Goas FLactoally | wnocent of offenses iar ESNich We usas canuicled, | | ~ fir . | 4, Mr, Meenck alleged that he was dened effective appellate Counsel Ushen counsel Farled to raise cladms that Merrick Gsas | . clemed a Leie trial when the prosecution comuitlecd numersus acts af Misconduct Oy introducing Moarterce| testimeny Mey Knew om ; alnavtd Nave Knew woas false . The Avceuna. Cxurts fauncdk net appetlete counsel uss not mehectwe , Thus Wis case presents . the Following question 3 . Did the Avrzanan courts ere Ww Fondling shat appellate 4 Coonse| Gres not mefectiig Cohen the prosecute presented | maternally Kagan false testumony to the yury fa obtain co Cameo and appellate counsel cid ngh pawe the clacm ON ap oeect. | | { | | | | -ite |