Whether the Court violated the petitioner's constitutional rights, including due process and effective assistance of counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED RACEZ\Ism How the Court violated ™y tonat rrional Riskts, my attorney Wha Te Known Since the fourth grace Was lAnafecrive, this Was his Second 4) me to repre sent, me in ron ‘Gurr, he Kneud ther DT trusted him bute ‘noe I hase donb, T received Prison Aime for the second time while Aauing Kim as my arkor ney, an Waves He tor is Warranted, ; Py eAyorney farted te dbyecs to the application Parasrayh in the Jury horse, the indictment Wes married # Concesling , theirs q oliHerence lesen Concealing “alyening and ‘hes royins evidence, Ar tral, atrer the Stote’s Case-inchia the thal Court arderedh Mcess Unvel the anget hey yin forming the qurors thay the louyers woulh work On the Chose, The next day, the Wal Court submitted the sary Chace fa the ‘forbes On phe record, and Appellants trink Counsell replied, “Do dhojections) Your Sonor, “Tn both the abstract and cpp lice sion Paragraphs, the chase ‘reluded alt theee means of vidleriag rhe States alter seetry U1 OF concec/ | The error in the applicarion fares raph hodatg th& CAE TR Qoty a \\ Police seized Arugs Without A Warrant in urolation OF Pe Fourth Amendment) 2) An ob yee tionahle yaty mem ber| Mr, Armstrons] sat 04 the jay atter thigh Connse/! mace qj motion to Strike hin in Usolation of the Freeh Amendment; 3) Thial Counsel was tnetlective because he failed to object to the C-bS Hert and app\ication Peres rapa in the Jury thatse on W's tampering With evidence Count) and 4) Both thal counsel and op p ellare Counrnse/ Were cueffective beleuse they didnt file ary pre-trial motions. . . |