Whether the petitioner was denied due process and the right to self-representation before the appointment of counsel and during the motions entertained pro se, and whether the petitioner was subjected to double jeopardy when a second grand jury was empaneled to seek a second indictment after five years

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED TL. Prd Tatal Court Errow tn Dental o Predotal Nottons ‘fro Ou = Belore the Agpott ment of Counsel ® L Mottons Entertatned ‘fro Se, o bebittoner Bear the Laht to Present Lssues on A geal = When Does ) , Exalted’, Zs one enttiled to the Rah ot SdfRepresentation 2 _Th ont tral Indictment Fatally Howed on tes Foxe, ! Boes A broseautlon = "5 sy the Empanel! & a Second Grond wary to week h Second 3 Ledekment trom somes ator mation Alber Hive yeors Constitute, TE Qube deagardy? LF OvgMrally Howed,, wtthost A Blof Palclastes or A Amendinent , Does sebtsltchton Over Subject Maker Exist ® TL, Unrthout Due Process ol Low, Procedure Proper Znvesoatlon tn the Lderbthtaottons froceas aan Tnadmtssible Sblements, idence, and Testimony Conatthute a valid Conviction? |