Whether the defendant was improperly called a 'n****r lover' by the victim's attorney, resulting in a violation of due-process, free-speech, civil-rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; o ‘ . : : | } . bein that (D Victum cittney Starec thar defendant Called hee a mgger lover being, fy rmorager. Statment why was that hot Called r the judae 1 ON he ased on a to) he tact +hat there was No pratt of _ that Starment trom defendant. _ @ Also defendant was Char ed in a dubble jeopardy do ta the tact that Efe Was an allageé rake ina aledgéd ASSault-how Can nat DE wi oth ledged beak ledged -h hat be with no evident of the viltum or defendant at rhe S7ore Or any witness a+ the aledged Store . ) -@ How iS it that the State expert witness Mce.Wells from the gang ; mrellegence Cleacly. States that defendant Racho2a is not proven ‘+o be a gang memhec bet Matt the State withes being +he “ Orstcict Attocney tells the jury a Straight ie that now they Know _ L Mc Rachsza ‘S$ & dana member.” How does that get over looked on _ the Petition toc Discletionacy Civew? . BM. Weflen being the States witness distuet attocney Plainly offers the yury with ao hribey of her Cac keys +0 ger the ; Sen rence thar she wanted how 1s this over looked in the Stare oF Texas Prosctutes MiSCon duc#? ° : Lo ® How is it thar defendants Charge Caries 9-20 Years but with the " habitual it Caries IS-W years oc Mite. The habitval’ Sentencing is only , th etecr iF the Case 1s taken to trial thar 1S Texas fie. We/l horh offers were QS Ve thats out of Sthtencing otteguide liness , ‘ and (ange. How 7S this Over locked ? , | | , SS S<SCSS CEI — ne .