Whether the prosecutor's submission of an affidavit for probable cause listing a tan animal hair found in a wicker trunk, when the DNA report received a week before the affidavit showed the hair did not belong to the victim, violated the defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; A oo WHY Qin THE PRosecuTeR SUBMIT A AFFINAVIT FoR PROBAMIE CAUSE LISTING CITING A TAN Animal HAIR WAS Fount INSINE WickER TRUNK WITH Vichin CAFTER ViewinG THE FET ONE a TERE Face Book Moe AND Scfing His TAN AND WHiTé K-q NoG) WHEN A OR RECEIVED THE DNA REPORT on 4/4n/dold (one week AEFORE Fill i> DaviT To THE CaukT) MAY bala) NA RefosT Helga Ao FRoM TRUNK’ AS Ane ah PRoFiED AS KElONGING To THE Vien? APfentix E EXHIBIT “AY ANA RPT. PAGE 3 oF.3) DAVIS V, STATE \B3ISWead 4b CTeX.CRMAPPIIBD EXP ARANOIEY) 731 S.W. de BBE ~ Grex. Rim APP.19B9)+ US, Vs Leon 468 U.5-B4 701989) TAT) OF U.S, CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (S) FouRTH, Fi THy FOURTEENTH 'Y FED. R, APP. P: Rui 5b (G), 2, How 1$ iT LEGAL FoR THE TRIAL COURT To Allow AND TGNoR TRAclevENTs TNADMISSIBlE NISIEADING CEli PHoNE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE To Ae Anmiited wen Cleagly THE MoTiON Fok MiSTRIAl SHouid HAVE BEEN GRANTED AT: 17QR.83-84 CexHidil “L”)» THE STATES ACCUSATION /SPECUIATION WAS “LACK IN CAN AcTiviTY ” Fak THE DAYS IN QuEsTON, LexaierT, WN PAGE \A)sWHicH 1s PROVEN To BE THE OFfaSITE WITH GRAPH AND PHONE RECORDS AT! EXHIATTS "C” PAGES HITHRD WS. C