Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid a trial court from allowing a capital defendant with questionable mental health to represent himself?

Questions Presented for Review 1. Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid a trial court from allowing a capital defendant with a questionable mental health history to decide to represent himself in a fit of pique, immediately following a guilty verdict? 2. Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid a trial court from disallowing a capital stand-by counsel when he so requests. 3. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US. Constitution forbid a trial court from making facetious remarks during a capital mitigation. 4. Does a trial court err in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments in demanding that a jury proceed to a unanimous verdict as to death rather than deliberate on the nondeath options of, inter alia, life imprisonment. 5. Does it violate the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution for a trial court not to instruct a jury that mercy can be considered during its penalty phase deliberations, particularly when the jury asks. ii 6. Are Ohio’s capital sentencing statutes unconstitutional under this Court's recent decision in Hurst v. Florida which held that Florida's capital sentencing laws violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury because it required the judge, not a jury, to make the factual determinations necessary to support a sentence of death. 7. Is Ohio’s death penalty framework is unconstitutional. R.C. Sections 2903.01, 2929.02, 2929.021, 2929.022, 2929.023, 2929.03, 2929.04, and 2929.05 do not meet the prescribed constitutional requirements and are unconstitutional on their face and as applied Hundley in terms U.S. Const. Amends. V, VI, VIII, and XIV; Oh. Const. Art. I, sections 2, 9, 10, and 16. Further, Ohio’s death penalty statute violates the United States’ obligations under international law.