Whether a non-unanimous verdict in a criminal case violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether a non-unanimous verdict in C.D.FL. # 0:12-cr-60088-WPD, in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment, is plain error, reversible error, and manifest miscarriage of justice warranting the requested habeas corpus relief. 2. Whether a duplicitous indictment on all Counts (1, 2, 5, 11,12) of C.D.FL. # 0:12-cr-60088-WPD, in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment, is plain error, reversible error, and manifest miscarriage of justice warranting the requested habeas corpus relief. 3. Under the united States Constitution, Rigal, a common citizen defendant, has the right to due process, an impartial jury, a speedy trial, informed of the nature of the accusations, a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in her favor, effective assistance of counsel, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual | | punishments inflicted. Rigal’s constitutional rights have been violated in the name of judicially fashioned codes. Is the united States Constitution still in force and valid? | See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, at 482 (1994) — establishing the basis for the damages claim necessarily | demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction. Page 3 of 19