Whether the right to an impartial jury was violated by the systematic exclusion of male venirepersons

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR RELIEF 1+ Petitioner's trial counsel obtained the jury list two days sci prior to the day of jury selection. On the day of trial, the ‘entire panel-of sixty-five (65) people was seventy-one (71%) percent female and twenty-nine (29%) percent male, in which : twenty-five (25%) percent of the make veniremembers were in the strike range. Petitioner's counsel, the prosecution, and the trial judge all struck every malé veniremember from sitting as a juror. Therefore, in the situation this Honorable Court eset: should determine whether the United States Constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from sources reflecting a fair-cross section of the community—through means of an effective counsel—is violated when trial counsel failed.'to object that all male veniremembers were systematically excluded by means of either discrimination or intentional exclusion, resulting in an all woman jury to hear Petitioner's case? . 2° This Honorable Court should determine whether the United ‘-States Constitutional right to the presumption of innocence, due process, and a fair trial have been violated, when the 227 . trial court, without a justifiable cause, ordered three uniz-. formed officer's (and one non-uniformed officer) to surround * the Petitioner while he testified during the guilt/innocence phase in order to temporarily replace Petitioner's visible shackling at trial? 3+ The Prosecution misstated the factual basis of the evidence and — introduced new evidence to the jury, by telling them that Petitioner actually sexually assaulted the prosecution, was con#:.: Page ii | . | QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR RELIEF victed of two sexual assaults on two other women, and that Petitioner was a grand wizard of the KKK—all of which are not true nor placed in evidence. Therefore, in the situation, this Honorable Court should determine whether the United States 2: Constitutional right to due process and a fair trial have been violated by the prosecution's manifestly improper closing argument, that is equivalent to an improper method calculated to | “ : "Page iii