Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated due to issues with identification procedures, denial of the right to confront witnesses, and ineffective assistance of counsel

No question identified. : _ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JESSIE WILLIE GREEN, Petitioner, Case No. ‘ USAP6 No. 20-1158 WILLIS CHAPMAN, WARDEN, Respondent / Dana Nessel Michigan Attorney General Attorney for Respondent Jessie Willie Green Petitioner appearing propria persona Thumb Correctional Facility 3225 John Conley Drive Lapeer, MI. 48446 ee A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Now comes Jessie Willie Green, respectfully a citizen layman at law, of the United States a resident of Wayne County, Michigan Indigent litigant, asks this honorable court to exercise its equitable, supervisory powers to grant me relief for the following reasons: I am currently unconstitutionally detained and imprisoned by Respondent, Warden Willis Chapman at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan serving 7-15 years for, Unlawful Imprisonment, MCL 750.349b; 3-5 years for, , Assault by Strangulation, MCL 750.84(1)(b); 2-4 years for, Felonious Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, MCL 750.82; and 2 years for, Felony Firearm, MCL 750.2276, to be served preceding and consecutive to count 1, 2, and 3, with (97) days Jail credit goes toward the FF count only. I was convicted in the THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE, STATE OF MICHIGAN, before the honorable Michael M. Hathvay Circuit Court No. 14-470 FH. On January 23, 2014 sessions began in the case People v Jessie Willie Green. The people were represented by Ms. Danielle Russo, p66492 assistant prosecutor; I a was represented by Mr. Ronald McDuffie, retained p34858. First, on 01/02/2014., the defense filed an adjournment in the 36th Judicial District Court where counsel moved the court to sequester the complainant because of identification issues where the complainant did not identify me in either police display as she stated on the first Line-up document Quote " It looks like number (4) i'm not sure." but I was in the number (6) position. Then the police did a second line-up where I was placed in the number (4) position where the first person was in the prior line-up, complainant wrote on the second line-up document Quote, "I Think he is the — one who attacked me. " During this time and before the court denied the request the prosecutor already had the complainant siting in the back of the court room where she could view:me outside of any posible subsequent corporal line-up that was being requested, At preliminary hearing 01/17/2014., counsel stated Quote '" YOU HAVE A WITNESS HERE WHO REALLY HAS NOT IDENTIFIED MY . CLIENT. " See Vol. PE. Id. at [ 48. 16-25 ]. The District Court bound me over for trial anyway! On 02/25/2014., counsel filed a Motion To Suppress the Identification. Counsel raised the identification issues and they were denied on 03/18/2014. Subsequently, I was convicted in a (3) day trial that began on : 03/19/2014., I did not testify per counsel's advise that the state had not met its minimum burden to charge. On 03/20/2014., in trial counsel moved to have the governments endorsed police witness to testify but was arbitrarily denied the fundamental U.S. sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against me and denied substantive due process of law specifically through the confrontation clause. See Vol. II. 03/20/2014., [ 122-129 ] Id. at 126-129. From these convictions I have exhausted all state remedies available to me with regard to the U.S. fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments by taking the following steps. I attempted to establish my meritorious claims not limited to the above violations that rendered trial counsel ineffective to li . . ——— adequately prepare and present a defence because the prosecutor never although requested for impeachment purposes, never provided the defense with a copy of the exculpatory video-recorded evidence that omits any weapon being used in this case and shows contrary to complainant's testimony, she could not have seen her attackers face. In the video, that person had on a mask fully covering their fa