Whether the trial court violated the defendant's constitutional rights by failing to properly administer the jury selection process under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 431(b)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED... ea List OF PARITES, 2 n TABLE OF COMTENTS oi {m0ex oF AUTHORETEES.. | ow. se, iy . OPIMLONMS 6 ee ee te ee ey NB, JURISDICTION. 66 ee ee eee eee he | LONSTITLTIOMAL PROYTSTONS 40 STATUTES, 2 . d, . STATEMEMT OF THE CASE... oe eee eet eee 3 REASOMS FOR GRaAwTIVG THEWRAIT,. CONCLUSION. 000 cc ete eee eer e ce ee AA . APPEMOLX APPEMOLY AOECESTon) OF THE TULENCTS APPELLATE CouRT APPENOIX &~ OECTSTond oF THE TULT ols APPELLATE COURT PENTEL RERERETOL APPRDIX C-~ OBLISTON OETRETUTNDOTS SUPREME COURT CENT As REVIEW i TINDEX_OF AUTHORITIES FEOPLE VY. HEnmRY 3ILL. Ago. 3d 935,338 (1st Dist ATID... 8 PECCLE V. WILLTAMmS US ThL.de S64 CAA) 2, eee ee 8 UNETED STATES COMSTLTUTION AmEWOMEAT XIV DLL AIK LLUIMCTS STATE CONSTITUTTON 1970, ARTICLE | SECTEONZ.» ~ “TB FEZOPLE V. NAYLOR AIA ELL. ad FSH (2007) ee, IO PEOPLE Vv. SEBRY , (Rory) TLL. NIHSS, MEA | ee ee HAN PEOPLE V. BELKNAP . . (ROMY Tee. W094, A S52-SR a ee NN PEOPLE vy, ADAMS CAOW TU. UWS, BRA ee ee eee PEOPLE VY. WHITE CAOW) TU. IOFERT NAA ee ee eee ee UI \V PETETIONER , CHADWEUC D.GARNER RESPECTFULLY PRANS THAT THIS HOWORARLE . COURT TOSVE A WRIT GF CERTIORARL TO REULEW THE JOOGEMENT BELOLS, , L OPE MIO MS | . THE ORTETNAL JLOGEMEAST OF COMUTCTION OF THE PETETIOMER WAS AMPERLED To THE APPELLATE CORT oF TLLENOES ,THEAO TUOTCEAL OLSTRICT, WORTH AFETRMED {OF THE 3 ConvEciTop% ZN And UMPORLISHED DECESTON 4000 TS ATTACHED HegeTo AS APPEWOTK TA", . A PETITION FoR REHEARING OFTHE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE CooRT OFILTAGIS, TWERO TOOTCTAL OTSTRECT LAG DENTE Ted Av VOLALTSHED DECESTOM AND ES ATTACHED HERETO AS APPEDDLY NB" THE JUOGEMEDT OF THE DECTSLON OF THE APELLATE Covel OF TLE MGLS , THIRO ‘ SOOTCLAL DLSTRECT WAS RCPEALED TOTRE TLLTWOLS SUPREME CoURt LORTCH WAS . . DENTED Ins AV UNPUBLISHED QELLSTON ANE TS ATTACHED HERETS PS areroorx ; , TL JUATSOLCTION, . | THE TUOGEMENST CF TRE APPELLATE Coutt of TUTNSTS , THIRO JUNICTAL OL stexcr UOAS ESTERED O19 DECEMBER 1 ,2O1G, A TEMELY PETEXTON FOR CEREARTOE LIAS FELED ANQ THEREAFTER DENTED ON TAMUARY OF {Rola A PETLTIOW FOR LEAVE LAS TEMELY FLED TTR THETLLICES SUPREME COVERT SoG LIAS DEMTEO ony MAY Ad. ROA. THE SURESOLCITON OF THIS COURTS TOVOKED ONDER 28 v.s,c& 1X57 Ca), \ Tit CONSTITOTEONAL PROUESTONS AN STATUTES, oO \, USTTED STATES CoSSTETOTION | AMENDMEDT YL: ALL PERSONS GOR OR YATURALTZED LO THE UnpscTeD STATES AMO Su8TCT To THE . SURISHICILow THEREOF, ROE CITEZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AO OFTHE STATE . WRERET THEY RESLDE. No STATE SHALL MAKE of ENFORCE RY LAW UHI SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIULLEGES OR TMMUMTTZES OF CLTILEWS OF THE VIOTTED STATES: , NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE AY PERSON) OF LIFE, LIBERTY, oR PROPERTY? WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAL NOR DENY TO AMY PERSONS WTTHTO 11s JURTSOICIION THE EQDAL ROTECTION OFTHE LALO. ) TUTOETS STATE CONSTETUTIONs 1470, ACTECLE | SECTION 2 + No PERSONS SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LLFE LIBERTY OF PROPERTY UstTHOOT THE DOE PROCESS OF LAUS pOR BE DENTEO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OFTHE LALIS. 3. ATIEMET ( FERST DELREE MuROER) TAO TLCS 514-106) Cid, THE LUTENT To COMMTT THE OFFENSE OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER.