Was the petitioner's constitutional rights violated?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QO. lby was a “Skefch! mate “YY, atler fepe was pegative ZA or Jo LOS Principle of law of resulting Ie. a ‘Iniscarriage of Jusfica? OB. Lf Petitimer (Kirk sayls) exercised) His cons titafrcal WANE L pematr | Bred Aad, armented HhePein with nt Kite. syle Preswlag a. tama QO. Why abil the states witperses Coleletives), Vlo lade Relihimern rset to refesa ~o answer yristin witht Ret hous adtorney? And wehisel to Consseucte fo ¥he. Lervectiys 72 tihg HME Myles) Dual toon ep pivelied Bes gt fo Kenta Sila and fo Sfeate with an attorney, OD.ZA PArNipep Was arrested on “atarel. 65 POU) wi hy west Cnr sa ples) Petit ner Dresewted with a “arrest warren on Yat day? ; @®@. viky was pebileme Qiven a Probeciesey Arfdlthen Shese. Hype of Pestings Are no ¢ cle srpnecl 7? Caselite” Samples? WE. Why dd the Judge cleny (etimears hnotimn Por a Suh pemort of Reguttily _P Tiyal) When C bursty Ye argunuat bid nof (2k any eerie? Ce). Did SYKe Sedge CAcre Joes) Htis— peat Clk plain) PAL i ury Lastuchiys Confort ot lAshuseon 34) 7 She. ary ? Cl). Did fhe drial Court v's fads Car AAyles.) Pefitmers i tht fy Cos °° — UndlerShe “tbs. and Fforida Constitution’? By Prof allowing pthione P & Lon fer with defense Counsel” Chacriug A2Cess tn Priel testimony ? OD) Did fhe tal Court Vio fete. Ribbons right to a. Fair Til? by an impartial Jury ? By omitting Step 2 of tye Melbourne huabyse aftr Mn.j1ys) Challenged Yhsce feremptory Strike against Apican “American Members off Ye Venizel |