Does a petitioner have the right to a fair-and-impartial-trial when a juror does not hear-or-understand-the-evidence

QUESTION PRESENTED : Question 1: Does a petitioner have the right to’a fair and impartial trial when a juror does not hear or understanding the evidence being provided? Petitioner respectfully suggest this question is worthy of this Honorable Court's review. U.S. Const. Amend Sixth. This clause has been interpreted to mean that a defendant is entitled to “ a tribunal both impartial and mentally competent to afford a hearing. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 126 (1987) (quoting Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 176 (1912) To satisfy this fundamental standard, jurors must be able to “conscientiously and property carry out their sworn duty to apply the law to the facts of the particular case.” Biagas v. Valentine; No. 4:06-CV-0668, 2007 WL 1217976, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2007), affd, 265 F. App'x 166 (5" Cir. 2008) (quoting Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 184 (1986); see McIIwain v. United States, 464 U.S. 972, 975 (1983) Rule 10: Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reason the Court considers: : _ (a) United States Court of Appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States Court of Appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort ; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding , or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for exercise of this Court's supervisory power; U.S. Const. Amend Sixth. has been interpreted to mean that a defendant is entitled to “ a tribunal both impartial and mentally competent to afford a hearing. To satisfy this fundamental standard, jurors must be able to “conscientiously and property carry out their sworn duty to apply the law to the facts of the particular case.” The Supreme Court cannot say that the juror's inability to hear and understand substantial portion of the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the failure of one juror to participate meaningfully cannot be justified on the basis that those jurors who did participate found the testimony to be credible. Hence, the juror's inability to hear denied the defendant the right to a fair trial and that the court abused its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial or new trial. Moreover, a juror cannot be aware of what she cannot hear. Thus, the juror here could not participate in meaningful discussion during the deliberative stage of the trial nor decide the case intelligently. The effect of the juror's inability to hear the testimony was tantamount to the juror not being in attendance for more than one-third of the trial, thus denying the defendant the right to a jury of twelve. . (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflict with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;. The state court along with the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to provide petitioner a fair and impartial trial. i. } Rule 24. Briefs on the Merits: In General 1. A brief on the merits for a petitioner or an appellant shall comply in all respects with Rules 33.1 and 34 and shall contain in the order here indicated: (a) The questions presented for review under Rule 14.1(a). The questions shall be set out on the first page following the cover, and no other information may appear on that page. The phrasing of the questions presented need not be identical with that in the petition for a writ of certiorari or the jurisdictional statement, but the brief may not raise additional questions or change the substance of the questions already presented in those documents. At its option, however, the Cour