Whether the State obtained Mr. Mason's conviction with insufficient evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Reasonable jurists would conclude that the State obtained Mr. Mason's with insufficient evidence. 2. Jurists of reason would determine that Mr. Mason was denied his constitutional right to Confrontation. ; 3. The State failed to meet its burden of proof of requisite intent, and reasonable jurists would conciude that this matter sheuld have been reversed. 4. Reasonable jurist would find that the trial court erred in denying the Batson challenges without requiring the State te previde race-neutral reasons for its peremptory challenges of Black prospective jurors. 5. Reasonable jurists weuld conclude that Mr. Mason was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial for failing te object te the State's playing the entirety ef Charles Evans® statement to the police. 6. Reasonable jurists could debate that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing te raise the issue of the impeached testimony being impermissibly used to convict. 7. Jwvists of reason would conclude that the trial counsd failed to object te the fury instructions at trial; and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing te raise such during the Appeal. James #5895S9\Mason James ushabwrtodt INTERESTED PARTIES District Attomey's Office 1* Judicial District Court 501 Texas St., 5" Floor Shreveport, LA 71101 Darrel Vannoy, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary General Delivery Angola, LA 70712 James #589589\Mascn James ushabwrt.odt