Whether the exclusion of all reliable and relevant material evidence, including the testimony of the defendant's first-hand witness, violated the defendant's right under the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ) First Yuestonis ahout the exelutien atall mi rehable and relevant material cvulence on md hehalfiac the relevant fesdimonY of my Furst bYewsdness of the Fucts of mY case Ruben Machado ios mY dun keslimonY excluded est of He Presence of the turers. which would be suttorted hithe result oF the DNA evidence ledieh es min land ft alethnbit Gi )ixed Rocrine Pb anclelea was Subror ted b4 the Recararionl of the Surhosed uckln Resa Es Mochacdalaturte land also tuvas Suttorded by the testiment From the Medical Krensie. Screndibre Anabied sauce suena Hil a01s-903 15 ~ a844.whe sheledl “exceor for Tuis case.TaEwa's MD DNA Eraence couNeChNG The DEFEMBANT To THe Weta in Tag case -THerd’s ND connection DNA. wise Between A REFERENCES SAMPIE AND The DEPEROANT ON TRuAL. (tushen Wereera) For which rsm¥ Queshon, WAY 2s my Uber ty sudoed bY another man'sancl usoman's conscremeer! hased en SPECULATIONS and ManuPuLaTioNs oF EvmEnce to dbtam m/convichon.ss itned A veolahen ofan accused's roht. under the comPulser' Precess Chiuse of he consditobean 's suxth and ourleenth Amendment, which would ave dome the right hb tresend evidence sonmt favor ; . ? Second question 1s ahovt the conthcl of mfecest thal my tuble-Debendar had Aecordint to dhe Lau. when the Mores deciled 4 reoresent me. hasedon the atferney's experience nsheadl of 40ind hy the facks of His case the attornes refused! to inized what r had bend askin’ her te da tam He ene whohe considered the atthe scene ofthe crime tere by, had mside inkormetisn ahout what Gull have heen Yount onat that hme of the facts. + There ore clues Hee sules b ashe the vicbmms Side sthe defendant's sidenandishat ceallY hatrened, itis the dbiect of the court to find out what really hat ened at thal bine of the medentis and whe was resonsible Kor an¥ Crim inal behavior Lany.B4 the Atbornes usind bis exteriense about dus dye of case or Court room exeerence,he dud not havehe defendants inkeres at best alborne’ onl¥ wanted 4, dene hs Calender ond move ants sor hey Case ~ +» The relevant material evidences mm PlanbHl Shaws te You and proves be tou the mehechve assistence of the comsel lachte sushina claim of TAca court must delermae the counsed’s RerFormance Fell bellons ain shseedve Stindardol reasonableness vider Prevaihnd frofessianal norms peotle V. ledesmalsae7) adcad.cn ub dobind stracitland v, washnotonloaiiel Ws: 668 04 seF 2062 and that a reasunable Pubabil dy exist Hat bist For Counsel's unProfessioncl ERRORS. the resu Ihab the Prcedine would have heen diferent rePle v, astengden oaadiis mY case nviokahon as wellas my Sentence » 9 Wil . . .