Whether the cumulative effect of deprivations of equal protection of laws, failure to appoint counsel, and procedural due process deficiency issues resulted in dismissal

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED i. WHaTHDR TAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT CourT'S Curivlative EFFLOT oF DLPRWATIONS OF LQUKL PROTECTION OF LAWS, FailLvrl 7 APeowT CoNSEL TO ADA PLTITPNER witd 4 Gexos Cobnitwe FUNCTION AREVICATED PROCLOVRAL pu PROCSAS DLFICIEMCY ILSUM ACYL DISMISSAL FR SLOOMD AM) PyLELISivi PETITION. (le WHETHER iE UMITEO STATES pisTRECT COURT EAILVRL TD APPoInT CUMSEL IM PETERMWO pve PROCESS QUESTION if A CAgVAL WK 10 TR(AL CovkT STRICT URAL DEAIGIENCY THAT iw Tal (UNE QR! Wekd HAVE IMS~RED COUNSEL 7S COMPLE THL DISTRICT GueT WITH. , | Ulf. WHCTHSR THE DRY WAS Qual AL) (PARTIAL IW OLTER HeWiNG “WusN If € kh CRIME NOT GNS10ZRI9 REMEYTATON — fuRrVANT T2 ChUFR MA — SMDENEL WASP Yo3 4nd 780 (WN ToTALITY OF THE RECORD in TRANSACTIONS WV. WHETHER 4 NAQUE VIOLATION QNSSTENT WTA pecemr DISTRICT CRT FRICL SME (pHBIED WIT A IMPARTAC JURY DLPRWATRN BRECHT SUPRA AT ES CU SATISALES (dE “UNUSUAL CaS2 © DETERM WAT ON WARRAMING HA SEAS RELIES We WHETHER Tas HITED STATES SUtREnie COURT SUPERVIZ>RY POWERS ’ | SHOMD DETER taht Ri Foe aTivl eRL cep ENCE IsthevisHe9 IN Law. [B. STRVTURAL OEACIENCY IN TRIAL , POST. TRIAL , PROCEDURE AND ANAL SS