Did attorney Douglas P. Earl violate Perry Burris' constitutional right of his 5th amendment right to due process of law subsequently violating his 6th amendment right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Oo DID ATTORNEY DOUGLAS P. EARL VIOLATE PERRY BURRIS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF HIS , STH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW ‘SUBSEQUENTLY VIOLATING HIS 6TH — AMENDMENT RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS . FAVOR? ANSWER: YES. The 6th amendment constitutional right of the petitioner was ; violated due to the fact that counsel was ineffective for failure to ; investigate and conduct a reasonable pre-trial investigation. See: Wiggins v. ; Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003). . . Answer: Yes. The Sth amendment constitutional right of the petitioner was’ © ‘a an violated due to the fact that counsel was ineffective when he so utterly : oh . failed to defend against the charges that the trial was the functional a ‘ equivalent of a guilty plea, rendering counsel's representation presumptively inadequate. See: U.S. v. Cronic, 466 U.S., 648 (1985). \ . a WAS ATTORNEY DOUGLAS P. EARL INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT FILING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT FORM OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS PURSUANT TO 204 PA.CODE 213.81? . . ANSWER: YES. Attorney Douglas P. Earl was ineffective for not filing a ‘confidential document form of the medical records belonging to the alleged victim. Pursuant to the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case records of the appellate and trial courts, the confidential document form shall accompany a filing where a confidential ‘ document is required by law, ordered by the court, or is otherwise necessary to effect the disposition of a matter, medical records are included as one of . the types of confidential documents, and are required to be filed differently ' then confidential information and documents. WAS ATTORNEY DOUGLAS P. EARL INEFFECTIVE FOR VIOLATING MR. BURRIS' 5TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT FOR CUMULATIVE ERROR? ; . . ANSWER: YES. Petitioner was denied due process by the the combined effect of individually harmless errors which, in combination, rendered the defense less : persuasive than it otherwise would have been. See: Chambers v. Miss., 410 U.S. ; : 284 (1949). _