Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with the decisions of two circuits, that a special jury instruction was not warranted when considering the testimony of addicts using a combination of alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamine and the credibility of their corroborating testimony which was the essence of the States case

QUESTION PRESENTED As there was no DNA or fingerprints of mine found on any of the physical evidence presented at the trial the prosecution relied heavily on a co-defendant’s (who admitted using methamphetamine every day in June) corroborated testimony from: 1) a third party who was an methamphetamine addict that destroyed physical evidence which allegedly tied me to the murder who had intimate relations with the co-defendants sister and close to the co-defendants father during the time frame of murder, 2) a brother of the co-defendant who was an addict, 3) a close friend of the co-defendants brother who grew up in the same foster care home 4) all the previous and other witnesses who were addicted to and using methamphetamine were using liquor and/or marijuana heavily during this time. The trial judge refused to consider relaying the effects of drugs have (especially methamphetamine) on people to the trial jury. During this entire time the press organ released a barrage of “leaked” and highly prejudicial information. that the forensic evidence proved to be false. These false prejudicial stories were then presented to the grand jury and then passed on to the district court trial and taken into the deliberation of the trial jury. The question presented is: . Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with the decisions of two circuits, that a special jury instruction was not warranted when considering the testimony of addicts using a combination of alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamine and the credibility of their corroborating testimony which was the essence of the States case.