When the as facto elauee is nic hed ae Ee eit 2 '5 obviously plain, does this error, reguire a reversal of Seog! criminal Conv aha

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED When the as facto elauee is nic hed ae Ee eit 2 ‘5 obviously plain, does this «4. error, reguire a reversal of 6 Seog! criminal Conv aha Z)\When a greater court FC, COA )does not vacate a eriming | Conviction, where @ Plainerror™ substantially and obviously prejudiced a defendant 2nd violated that defendants Canstitytional Zights? Would such bea Grave /iscaret lusticé, Therepy callin egrity oF that : ? J into question the inteqri a urrs 3) Dees the fatal variance, based onthe impropieties of language in the Count Z2 charge , using “ANB incomparison to the Jury instruction tusteen lve See Thereby deprive the petitioner of his Constitutiong | rights ett by the Gt amendment "to be informed of the nature Gnd Cause of +he accusations? ANd does this-fatai variance also, violate me Stand 14¢4amendment of bue Process of law depriving petitioner of these yital Constitectional RIGATS* 7 5 : ‘moropieties of lanquagé used by the 4) Does the fatal variance of the re yitioners indictment using 19 charged alleged offense of Fer! 7 | Count 2 charges ary dict forme useing “OR” CAUSE 4 “anp’ in Comparison to the Ve ve y —— tah? ait lo choice and thereby igniting @® unanimous verdicts 5) Would it be appropiate to allow the testimony of a government on . hat has a preconcieved sien of the cause. Expert witness, tna yt ot death where the precise Seguent € of the Substances present in the deceased have been redacted and/oe the isk ae Is incomplete and inadequate , be used to Sustain a on a rons Awp if not would such festimony be deemed Worthless s