Can a conviction for witness tampering be upheld when a Defendant did not ask a witness to lie for him?

Questions Presented 2 1. Cana conviction for witness tampering be upheld when a Defendant did not ask a witness to lie for him? 3 and; can a Court of Appeals change the interpretation of 18 U. S. C. 1512 (6)(1) to allow a conviction to be 4 sufficient based upon a biased witness’ impression of a letter, even after that same witness testified to bein; 5 under the influence of drugs, while perjuring herself in front of a Federal Grand Jury, and also admitting to 6 lying to police officers, federal agents and Government attorneys? 7 2. Whether Ohio Revised Code 2911.02 (A}(2), second degree robbery, is unconstitutionally vague, similar to 8 the precedent set in the recent Davis decision; and whether the Court, in the interest of fairness and justice, 9 should deploy a case specific approach in determining if an offence is a crime of violence or not? 10 3. Whether the trial Court should have provided a substitution of counsel when the Defendant made several 11 timely and good faith motions which evidenced his dissatisfaction and communication issues with his 12 appointed counsel? 13 4. Cana trial Court deny a Defendant their Sixth Amendment right to selfrepresentation, in violation of the 14 Constitution of the United States, without a Faretta hearing, even after he unequivocally asserted his 15 constitutional rights in pro se motion and during hearings. 16 5. Can the District Court ignore a Defendant’s Fifth Amendment due process rights and violate the Federal ; 17 Rules of Criminal Procedure 43(a)64 denying him the right to be represented at every trial stage as the law 18 requires? , : 19 6. Under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(8), can a parole officer testify at trial without poisoning the jury 20 panel and create bias against the Defendant? 21 7. Under the Fourth Amendment, can government officials go inside a jail cell and seize legal materials, 22 including confidential trial strategy, that was not listed on a protective order? 23 : 24 : 25 . 26 27 : : . 28