Whether Petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct a pre-trial investigation and call important fact witnesses, medical experts, and sexual assault experts

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; LA Rtitionec’s trial why di'el my Lawyer nor Conclyct# a pre-trial ia vestigation, jaro my (Perizioner) CRA EDMOND YANLYS Cose? . 2Why dic Petitioner's Lawyer not Call any important facts wiynesses, mechicvl experts, ONA erperrs, Sexual assavl+ experts to question the KientAic medica! detinition of the Complain tants sexval ussadlt exami notion os in, Fovelv, Hellins 261 F 3A210 or Laclstudt V; Kean 237 FI2N/I22 3U¢ the khinition given jn Aypelant s buetlee Val 3 at 80-84 pg, States thet after a 2 hove examination levealed no travma to Complantants Vigina, hymen , Cervix, or Feriacvm, and this is the medical definition of a woman who is a virgin, then Why 18 fetitioner spill ia prison hr the aone existonr crime of iasertiay his penis into ComplocatanT’s vigina onte of twice a week? 4. Perirconer ask this Honorable Court this very important question, woubdn't this make the tomplacntant hora virgin or the time of the Zhouvr examination? S.Why was the physician pot Colled to testity instead of using selondhund testimony tom kei} Appellant's brief, ihe val3 at B)py 3, ; b How ts it Phar the examin “ng physiqian and the Sexval Aesov}t Morse are at dissogreement as to whether u sexval assoult took place? HB, lek. volzut 98)p94 physician's Setondhand testimon yClaims Sexval assauft, AB, (eé.vol’3 at 104) pqh, Sexvol Pssaclt Expert thors no sexual assovl” ~ 1..Doesn't+ this Create a vorsence and how could fed tioner be convicted without eyidlente? 8, Dalton v. Stare 898 Su, 21424 brex.Ago-ort Wortte 1995) istrve as to What happens toa woman Whos a virgin when sexvally assaulted f then how is 14 that Complaratanrs who is & Vitgin, State~ menit true t Iypellart's Breet, (arvels at 17 pg by and Ayelonrs ALTACE) ur [b34 704 ki? 4. Are not these Statements an impossibility with a Virgin? lo, If Petitv'oner has not sexvally assaulted Complaintant, raserting his penis once or tujce a week tor Years;then how 's it that Complo'atant’s sister saw fotirioner having sex. with the virgin Complo intunth Aysellonr’s byek (ee vol3 at 6 Y)pa lh elf the Serer told an untrith ) Petjuring herselt to help the Complaintant, wouldnt 1p-Stond to reason thut she tld an virtrith ahovt Hypellanr sexvally assavlting hee ABM V0/3 at &3)pol), (2, There however wos DNA fourd Phat Was hor Petitioners, So how's ir Ptitioner L/as Convic ted when Philli'as the States DMA byperr States the DUA clicl not Motch Petitioner's DUR ?. RoeeHaatss Buel, (Rk. hVol Zat Nps. . B, Gorag to the heart of the matter, Agpellanr world ask this Honorable lourt this. It Prition er Committed no trime of taserting his penis iato lComplarntants vig! aa onte of juice a week for years, because Complaintant is medically and physically a virgin then Why has Pphioner not been (eleased Jom fusen +0 go home fp his Amily? , 14, Why wasnt the vislati'on of hyvioner’s Constitutional Amendment Aight 45,b69and i, nor add resced i'n any of the State lourt’s judgments? 18, Would Hus Honorable Lourt in its wisdom please determine and awarel fou'rly to heti¢ion er, assole from mon cf ary amount for false impr (sonment trom State, She Kesti'tution hor Callareral bamages/Inuries to Pet toner'¢ bfel hetrtioner would ¢onsiler the amount brdéred hy this Honorable Cour h, because je+)n€ to move on con't you think © QUESTION G) PRESENTED |b, Why does my. Case keep getting sent back withove the Case being heard by the Covrts and the major. grovnds addnessed along with the DNB /ssve. 2 ee 11. Bnd doesn't, Minix. v. Gonzales [62 Sur zl 63S (ex. fypHovston [her bis]zoos) yn. 3 Pending key 34 (35),"A Ao Se Inmate's ferition should be viewed with Wtheralty ancl patienté, and is_. not held to the Stringent Standards tpphed to formal pleadsngs Drotted by Hitorney’s. Hoghes vs Rowe 449 US, 59-10 ¥N9 101 SCF: 123, 66 L. Be. 2cd, 163(/980) hiring Pines v, Kerner, 404 US, 519, S20~ 21, 92 8.04, 594, 30 L, bl Zo, 652 (1972), Block v. Jackson 82 Sah 3d. 44, of fTexchy » Tyler 2002, No per) Agvilor “ Sto