Whether Ritey was denied his 6th Amendment right to have his jury assessed with instructions on the application of legal principles to the evidence and law that is the legal assessment of the separateness of the two alleged events of the crime

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 1. : Whether Ritey wos dented his bY aad The dumendmeat Right to have Ins jery asseished win instructions on the applica bien of beaal actnct ples to the evidence and \auw thet is -Yhe leaal assessment of the sepacatemess ot the two alleged everitts ef the crime” whereby they could determine” Ethe whole of the wreng the estme” of which the Stabe soudhtto convict/sentence Cpunish) Riley fors and) P20 then whether the TH Circuit Court of Appeal aMeming af the bastrtck Couds dtspositicn or the. Respendeut’ postion was ; wrongly dectded. 2. Whether the weedls] “kuve evevrtt , within Ere term ’ “ om Legal assessment ot the sepeceben ess ob two evevits” deBinet “an occurrence or \netdent, oc gathes ne, ac ackiveby ‘ hence, “Lethe causal effect of the alleged erime ) and Peo then inthe absence of R} ley's sory betne, able te concider such ~ Deausabions” was net hits due Precess under Ye Brand rh Amendment Wioloed 5 and, W eo then whethes the. gin Cicerrit Courtot Appeal off coming & the Dictrict Cours disposttion oh Ye Respondents position wrongly decided. : 3, Whebher re weed “ thea”) withia the teem “wnde periderst _ felonious Lilbent” ind! cobively construe Hehe mental shde of Riley 5 hence, “Fhe mens real 5 ound the wor “pucpose ; wrthin theterm “Sad ependerttelentous purpose ” consbrue SLthe actus ceusl ‘ ard y eo then was net Reley $ eth and ut Amendment Qrglt Violated where the Stabe farted to Prove ordisprove these elements ushereby Riley's jury VO tuslructons could have. properly determined his gurl ar tae Recence’y ond, SF so then whether the raid Creat Cour of Appeal afhtemlug A the Nshkeret Coucks dspostton ofthe Res~ po nderits postion rarongly decided, 4, Whether the wordLi] “that may bey within the term “a legal assessment o& the aeparcbeness ote events “BR That Moy be’ conducted by the tonal Judge “ conskrue permissiveness C disecebdan) which Eis net] waan dacory y thus twaplying thet Rileys yery ae well “wey have.” sonductted | by Way ok “constderotion weight nq ~end determin’ ng “the. legal assesgment & the seprrebeness of the alleged tise events “in ocder to hele trem reach a proper vecdiet ok Riley's guilt or inmodence tn acto dance -b his 6 and pyth hmend ment Rights; and, Psp dhen wohether the THC ecu Court & ope al oltcming otthe. Nisteact Courts Arposthion ofthe Qesponderts posi= tien wrongly deeded. 5. Whether the traditional burden which Our system oh ecminal jusktee deems essenttal tn accocdance to due process undec the bP and 1 Amendment such as ta Riley’ case, require the ote £, prove. beyond a veasonable doubt and thus ) the Jusy deo consider, “That which ts-octs not” where “That which Is~oc-ts not” ustll ullin otely seat the Tate of Riley j rather thts thet of his guilt oc \nnecence 5 and , iS co then whether re TY Crceath Couct of Nppeal Reming of the district Coucks disposition ot the Respondent's posthton voronegly decided. | 6. Whether the T Cleeuth Courtof Appeals Lilecl te aclenousledge that Ye atte FP Space ushich Eb broughtto Hue forefront i ths Order was reversed and dene so on a cimabac-issue Mkened to Riley’ and should hereHas served as a superventyg development} bend. Ing reason do barat Riley's then appeals and so) Whether the erroneously exenptton srelements by Ell nets suc as in RMeys tase violabe dus process ancl equal prabechten ofthe las ana uit ) serve asian abrogdtten to well lmeum and Slaused US. Supreme Court lar, thereby alley taba the Sabe’s burden bo prove. essen— dial elements anddhe. tale ay the accused de a jure chete rminabton theresh foe Lire. peooles ectmtwallyaccessed & anime j Yrs y shrin king ~Fritherd ng and deserting Ye pousers and quare orbees of Dur U.S, Condition ond Yretenete of Sunis pradences 20 satdy Whether ne, hence, Riley regardless o& tnnoceuce of gurlt ts deserving of fundamerthal Lalnness tn accerdance ta | due process and equal protection windes dhe oh and (qh Amendment oF Our LS. Conskitigbton .