Is the Indiana state appellate court's opinion that its trial court did not abuse its discretion when, over multiple objections, it permitted surprise expert testimony in mid-trial and did not provide me an opportunity to depose the expert or a meaningful opportunity to review his test or materials beforehand, a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause under the Fifth, Sixth Amendment and/or the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendments and/or a constructive denial of counsel under Cronic?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Is the Indiana state appellate court’s opinion that its trial court did not abuse its discretion when, over multiple objections, it permitted surprise expert testimony in mid-trial and did not provide me an opportunity to depose the expert or a meaningful opportunity to review his test or materials beforehand, a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause under the Fifth, Sixth Amendment and/or the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendments and/or a constructive denial of counsel under Cronic? | : 2 | Petition for Writ of Certiorari Timothy Marcus Mayberry PARTIES Petitioner: | Timothy Marcus Mayberry, Petitioner in Pro per c/o P.O. Box 1 Carlisle, Indiana 47838 Respondent: : Indiana Attorney General 302 W. Washington St., IGC South, Fifth floor Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 | Petition for Writ of Certiorari Timothy Marcus Mayberry