Question not identified

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , ; ARGUMENT I. ; . Whether Petitioner was deprived of his due-process of law, and a fair trial, where the trial court never orally read the jury instructions to , the jury. a rn : . (1) Trial court never instructed the jury concerning first degree murder, and lesser-including involuntary manslaughter. ; ; . (2) Where defense counsel never gave a standing objection, which was plain error, and ineffective assistance of counsel. : ARGUMENT IT. : . Whether Petitioner Barmore, was denied due process of law, and a fair trial, where in his final argument the prosecutor misstated the law, with a ‘improper argument. ce , (1) Where the trial court gave permission for petitioner to have a lesserincluded offense of involuntary manslaughter. : (2) Where the substantial prejudice caused by the prosecutor, that it would "Dispicable" and allow the defendant to "escape responsibility". (3) Petitioner's attorney never objected held to have denied petitioner effective assistance .of counsel. ue ARGUMENT III. Where Petitioner Barmore, was denied due process of law, by the ineffective assistance of trial defense counsel, who failed to call a critical forensic ' pathologist expert witness, who had cancer to testify for him. : (1) Where his defense counsel to Petitioner the forensic pathologist was ready for after two years continuances. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (2) When”. Petitioner was brought out for trial: the defense counsel to petition the Forensic Pathologist expert was not coming. (3) Petitioner told the defense he was not going to trial without the forensic pathologist, defense said he would have trial without him present. ARGUMET IV. Whether Petitioner Barmore was denied due process of law, and violated under the statutory requirements of 18 USC § 241 and 18 USC § 242. Due to the conspiratorial : ; deprivation of Federal and State constitutional and statutory rights and liberties : by State Officials, acting under color of State law, and Federal law. ; (1) Which includes Petitioner's trial judge, who now is a US District Court Judge, who was very bias and prejudice in this case as a whole. (2) And now works with a senior judge in the US District Court who's son is a third degree relationship. Where his son was my wife's State Attorney ; who had her sign a no-contact clause, before she was let out of jail ona bail bond, and was my judge on my writ of Habeas Corpus, who fabricated my case of 12 issues by bias and prejudice, where I did not receive fair and adquate hearing.