Whether the government can advise a jury that a Defendant invoked his right against self-incrimination, and refused a consensual, warrantless search of both his home and his body

QUESTION PRESENTED This is a simple Petition. McGraw was clearly deprived of his federally protected constitutional rights under the 4 and 5 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He petitions this Court, as guardian of these federally protected rights, to step in to preserve these rights, for him, and those similarly situated. McGraw was convicted of sodomy (KRS 510.070) and sexual abuse (KRS 510.110). At trial, the prosecutor advised the jury that, during the investigation, McGraw invoked his right against selfincrimination, refused a consensual warrantless search of his home, and refused a consensual warrantless search of his body. These bombshells were dropped on him at trial, without prior disclosure, in violation of the Criminal Rules as well as the Trial Court’s own order. The Kentucky Court of Appeals’ unpublished opinion affirming the conviction is rife with erroneous references to trial testimony, misstatements as to who testified to what, and provably false claims regarding McGraw’s adherence to the Rules of Appellate procedure. More problematic though — the Kentucky Appellate Courts failed to substantively address his very clear and obvious constitutional claims. The Question presented is this: Whether the government can advise a jury that a Defendant invoked his right against self-incrimination, and refused a consensual, warrantless search of both his home and his body; if not, will this Court be the guardian of those constitutional rights?