Are trial attorneys obligated to protect every fundamental right entitled to defendants under the United States Constitutional Amendments?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW a) Are trial attorneys obligated to protect every fundamental right entitled to defendants under the United States Constitutional Amendments? If so, did Kevin's trial attorney denied him any of the United States Constitutional Amendments presented in this petition? ; 2) If this court concludes that counsel did not protect Kevin's fundamental right entitled to him under the United States Constitutional Amendments, shall Kevin's conviction be vacated? ; 3) Does the VI Amendment right to an Impartial Jury allow a juror similar to juror #2, Kathryn Bennett in this case to participate in jury deliberations, although the juror stated on Voir dire that her brother-in-law works at the same Prosecutor's Office that's trying the case at trial? 4) If Kathryn Bennett fit the Criteria to be excluded for implied bias according to the doctrine held in 455 US 209 to preserve the VI and XIV Amendment right to an impartial jury, did trial counsel violate Robinson's VI and XIV Amendment right to an impartial jury for not exercising a peremptory challenge to exclude her? ; 5) If this court concludes that the lower courts' decision conflict with 466 US 668; 455 US 209; 145 Led.2d. 792; and 511 US 127; regarding trial counsel or the trial court violating Robinson's VI and XIV Amendment right to an impartial jury, shall Robinson's conviction be vacated? 6) Does the VI and XIV Amendment right to Due Process allow an attorney to omit material statements from the jury's readback of a state's main witness testimony, similar to Joseph in this case briefly admitting he don't know if Kevin had a knife during the fight but only guessed he had a knife, when the _ trial judge granted to give the jury a full readback with regard to their request about Joseph's recollection of Kevin pulling out a knife? , 7?) When trial counsel met with the prosecutor and the court reporter to select Joseph's statement, did trial counsel violate Robinson's VI and XIV Amendment right to Due Process by agreeing to omit Joseph's statement wabearing on Kevin's innocence denying the jury's request? 8) If this court concludes that the lower courts’ decision conflict with 466 US 668, at 694 (citing AGURS); 427 US 97; 373 US 83; 132 S.Ct. 627; 506 US at 540; and 415 US at 317; regarding trial counsel violating Kevin's right to Due Process by denying the jury's request on material evidence, shall his conviction be vacated? 9) Does the VI and XIV Amendment right to a fair trial allow the trial judge, like in this case, to instruct the jury not to render a verdict on the lesserincluded charges nor answer their questions on the verdict sheet unless they first find that the state has failed to meet its burden to the murder charge, although it conflicts with 508 US 333? 10) Did trial counsel violate Robinson's VI and XIV Amendment right to a fair trial by suggesting the sequence of the charges given to the jury for consideration starting with murder, aggravated manslaughter, and then reckless manslaughter permitting the jury to : consider murder first before the lesser-included offenses? 11) If this court finds that the lower courts’ decision conflict with 508 US 333: 524 US 88; 421 US 684; and 466 US 668; regarding trial counsel violating Kevin's VI and XIV Amendment to a fair trial for allowing the jury to consider an unconstitutional instructions, shall his conviction be vacated? 12) Does the V and VI amendment permit trial attorneys to protect their client's . right against self-incrimination by filing a 104(c) preliminary motion to challenge a witness statement, similar to Oscar's claiming he allegedly heard Kevin confess to someone else other than himself that he stabbed the victim, and to challenge another witness statement, similar to Joseph's claiming he heard Kevin stating other incriminating statements when their clients deny the allegation? . . : 13) Did trial counsel violate Kevin's Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination for not filin