Whether a defendant is actually innocent when the socks clearly show he acted within his wants, and whether the defendant's exercise of his rights to defend himself against an aggressor can violate his due process rights if the law permits such actions, and whether a conviction based on a misinterpretation of circumstantial evidence alone would violate the defendant's constitutional rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 0) Ts a deSendian’ oclually, \nnocen vohen Socks clearly Show he acked cothin Wis Wants wurde aus! @® Liha oe AeLendon exerciges Nis Nats Xo deen hy iweekt ageinst An og resser Can We alate Convick him Lodnouk \ihine Wis Ave Process Viens ho ack as MWe loro permits: Wold nok Such a Comvichion lone @ Violobion of \nis Comebthucioner\ rights £ @ How Com defendant Teclae a Soar Tain) 4 Me \Oty ; Cireuth Court of Appests , When reir al Loas besecl on Preie misinlerpration of Corencie evidence, Meir iwterprechion 15 exvonk \recauce ballishics and foreusic eidence make re Clear Wroct iis is Not Me @ Case. |