Question not identified

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED _ Given . 1) Inconsistéfit statements by the alledged victim 2) At least one statement by the alledged victim that is not physically possible A BU Vv r 3) The 2 main prosecution witnesses contradictory testimonyjan alledged incident bh > 4) The 2 main prosecution witnesses agreeing there is no physical evidence f 4b &€ 6 [ A ) 5) A trial judge missed several statements by a potential juror showing they would not be impartial forcing the defense to use a strike to remove them or be assured of at least one guilty vote regardless of evidence or testimony , Is the State of Missouri's Courts rulings and law repugnant enough to this : Honorable Court to 4) Reestablish the collaboration rule in no physical evidence cases, or at : least in cases where the prosecution witnesses contradict each other and no , physical evidence exists ; 2) Declare unconstitutional a law that conflicts with the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Given . 4) Inconsistéht statements by the alledged victim 2) At least one statement by the alledged victim that is not physically possible A ROV > 3) The 2 main prosecution witnesses contradictory testimonyjan alledged incident § 3 4) The 2 main prosecution witnesses agreeing there is no physical evidence — (4 {t 6| AO 5) A trial judge missed several statements by a potential juror showing they would not be impartial forcing the defense to use a strike to remove them or be assured of at least one guilty vote regardless of evidence or testimony Is the State of Missouri's Courts rulings and law repugnant enough to this Honorable Court to 1) Reestablish the collaboration rule in no physical evidence cases, or at ; : least in cases where the prosecution witnesses contradict each other and no . physical evidence exists 2) Declare unconstitutional a law that conflicts with the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution