Was the Petitioner, Alvin Davis, Jr. denied a fair trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Was the Petitioner, Alvin Davis, Jr. denied a fair trial, by violations and conflict of state and federal law, Batson v Kentucky, Brady v Maryland, and the laws of the State of Louisiana Violations and conflict with Second Amendment, 14° Amendments rights, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, due process, the right to cross examination, Violations of Brady v Maryland duty to provide discovery of evidence favorable to defense. Violations of Batson v Kentucky racial discrimination, racial preemptory — jury challenges. Violations Brady v Maryland, Disclosure and Prosecution Misconduct 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTORARI Petitioner Alvin Davis, Jr. respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v Davis, 2017 K 1440, affirming First Circuit Court of Appeal, 2014 KA 1524, to review the judgment of : Louisiana Supreme Court, dated 5/18/2018, denying writ of review, and LAST decision of that Court for the denial of petition for Re Hearing, as per Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, section 6, dated September 21, 2018 (emphasis added) . 1 for failure to provide the defendant Brady material necessary for his defense (the defense fulfilling the three (3) necessities requirements of Brady) by ‘hiding’ of a ‘state’ witness petitioned for persistently as to his whereabouts, by defense in motions in limine. The presence of said witness at the trial was necessary to the defense and would have made a difference in the outcome of the trial. Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 783 (1963) 2 by giving defense, the wrong date of birth of prospective witness, Angel Rivera, in a continuous effort by this and other means to ‘hide’ the whereabouts and identify of this witness, depriving the defense of the ability to subpoena the witness for trial, a witness necessary for the defense. R. at p 3,412 3 using audio only, Exhibit 24, and not video of witness, Rivera, to keep him hidden from the defense. R at 523,529, 19-21, and R. p.560 Further prosecution misconduct 4 stating to the jury by the prosecution, in closing argument, that the sentence of defendant, should he be convicted, would be entirely up to the trial judge, would not necessarily be life imprisonment, knowing full well, the State would multi bill the defendant, if convicted, resulting in a mandatory life sentence, by the trial judge. 5 failing to provide all criminal records of the victim and those of her boyfriend, said records specifically motioned for in limine by the defense. The prosecution provided one (1) minor legal conviction of the victim, but when the victim testified at trial, she admitted several other criminal convictions. R at 447 6 Supporting throughout the trial of the case, false testimony of State witnesses, known to be false by the prosecution, relative to drug use by the defendant and the State witnesses. The State knew the defendant to be a crack cocaine user. The State knew the victim and her boyfriend went to defendant’s trailer, to obtain and use crack cocaine, but presented them as ; simple marijuana users, R at 405,586 The State continued to support inaccurate and untrue information of drug use by the victim, throughout the trial. The State, in its CASE IN CHIEF, over objection by the defense, continued to hide the prospective witness Angel, Rivera, by using the audio recording 3 only and not a video recording, using in its case in chief. The audio recording of Rivera, supported the false testimony of the victim, Hines. The State was in possession of the past and present cocaine arrests of the defendant, and of the State witnesses, but continued to present the State witnesses, as simple marijuana users. T at 600, lines 17 19. (emphasis added) Law enforcement had the witness Rivera, in interview, knowing the criminal history of that witness, and knowing the cocaine histories of all the parties, including that of the defendant. Again, the State presented to the jury the ‘picture’ of the witnesses Darryl Hines