Whether the refusal to allow Baggi's testimony and the denial of an authenticated copy of a transfer history document severely impeded his ability to present evidence that clearly shows he was incarcerated during the time period of the alleged offenses

Questions Presented | ___ | did ReTusal to Allow Baggis Mtory Newsome ceahed land Authenhented Lopy oF A tANSTER histony clocument sevencly : Iinidea his abilihy te RESENt Mi» evidence That clearly shows Hurt he was incancensbed cuning Yhe TINE pediod of Ap igas | | Rough dctobER Vt 1495 wot The Hime Tames oh which i+ WAS leqed tnt he vislthed 18.2-370, ANd 18.7-67.2 of the Codi at _. ingiwit WAKna eh apes bole Toh him -toecewe A TAA taal 2 | | Cant TRIAL Count MAHAN cobVictioNs WHEN AMISCARRIAGE of ushice AS DCCURREd because DANG ANrenly Nedsome was in She Wg ANE A, _ Deprakment of CarRerflons in He HME IN Question? sa & Commonwealth initiate enininal: ooezedi Ng that the _{Loumonwicrlth Kilon is Not ouppotted hy pRobable chuse 2 | HU Did HAL Counsel ehical behavior misconduct Rendes ine Hechve IAssistanee ct course! when couse! E NgAC éd W Conduct divectly ; | | NSREDRESENTALON himselt to the tata dish Nesty,iNtewhswAlly thud (lowly conceal aabenal Fach which avdle A ruption [be the dauth seeking Function: of the tail MAlKins if impossible Ko Wim to Rece We A TAR taal? _ _ _ 5. did TRia\ Hour Eahed iA isl ain bwnnio_ A\bouly NeEWooMe 5 BYrth, : He dent dus to double juspandy oy multigle AENSES with , , i Hag puRlod 2 2 ne AYEMENt ot Facks {| Ow the 12°F Tuy zl daily Wis ry tAlel before te Vowople Nudge. Joies, he Appellant, deans Nowy Newsome Shou Counsel ___ 4 senpted. | bo intRoduck inte Evidence A document the subject otwhich , ns the calied taauen hishay ot tne Appellant Fo tne Waguiik —{Depuatwent a Coagecions TT Tuly 12 RF 121-122, The Angus wks __ pep hs Ty Td Resi, Sprain _ [Reodds Vitgonk Department & lancet ons.was cealited boy Me, ulh \. lames, Custodian ot Records Ae KetsRized by Caelyy WW. MAtAS fh staty Tublic Te The Commonwealth TAR (ZZ The __Lfontwonentthr obgerticd be the Adwloston st fhe docunent claiming Wart Shea Wad wot Reeented AN Nilo Noh ce Fao Yns AbtORNGY Pathe acauisite whice audsuant fo Supieme Court gule SA: Ge), he Conmonweatth Achwowledaed The Eack that anevious detenst ae lad wide The Comore nltl ARE ot an tact Vat _ {Alan idence was sin bo be used ANd that the Commoner had Recewed & Cony dt Pre Wwnster histoay document FRom IRENIOS defense cundel The Commodwedtth Also Kefiiowledged Mie Tack Suk the beansler Wistory vould evidence that Dantts __[Aihoru_ Jlewsone ving mcacentted aa Ané Tne petied stated iN | the indictments sentmning bo weiderts vihich Allegedly occurted ___ fy 1995, 7d at 1723, Deense counistel angued ha the Commonwtea Yh, ad Nevea to Wied obgecbed fo is ittroduehon And tal pREGOUS Schense Counsel had Woticed Ane Commetwenlth of vhs heNtion ba initedure, the HRNMStER tietey Jocument as Air evidence in A Lette: _ Akted Mnach 8 201 Td M124. The Tal Court ous tained tye a. ommndwedn's olyceckion kid The TRANS cR Wishony document was dof : Allowed iho Evidence. 1.4, ee = pices bled oe wes PAGE, _ | This pelition ‘is Ton A clse initiated in the Vinginis a ~ Court, Z | —_ Tunisdichon _ | | 28 y se §e5i@by) | ___|8 1651(A)-The Supneme Court dvd all courts established b ker wane MAN “ose All waits Neseashl oR AppRopRMte i WN ot thea. 2 gopective jutisdich onS AN AGRE ALE _ lho Yhe usaaes And PRINCES oF Wk, _ (b) AN AltERNATWE wart om dule Wiss may be issue by k pidge _ ha. susties Ea cound wiltch as jutisdiclig, | | viwked_stales Suoneme Court Rule 22 And 610) iF whew ___Wdewisl io without prejudice A Renewed application is wade | b A lehea o Me Cle Jesiquatina Lhe Tush CE to whor