Was Duong denied due process and equal protection

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under the particularized need doctrine, indigent defendants are allowed to file applications for post-conviction relief without supporting documentation after having made specific references to constitutional violations in their trial. Duong filed an application for post-conviction relief that satisfied this constitutional obligation but was denied access to the record and his claims denied as speculation and conclusory allegations. Was Duong denied due process and equal protection when the lower courts deprived him of an opportunity to collaterally attack his convictions and sentences? 2. The prosecutor intentionally drew the jury’s attention to Duong’s postarrest silence to impeach him and call him guilty contrary to Doyle v. Ohio 426 U.S. 610 (1976). The lower courts agreed the violation was serious but said it was harmless because the evidence was overwhelming. Because only testimonial evidence was presented, should Duong have been afforded a new trial free from an error that clearly prejudiced him in the minds of the jurors? ii