Whether the lower courts erred in deciding probable cause, the confrontation clause concerning search and seizures and/or requirements of a warrant, with the production of a confidential informant and the right for the accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | There has been more than enough cases in the last few decades, where search warrants that lack probable cause has been accepted by all the lower United States District Courts merely on a | good-faith exception to the exclusory rule. But the good-faith exception does not apply if the warrant affidavit is “so lacking in indica of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Did the lower courts err in deciding probable cause, the confrontation clause concerning search and seizures and/or requirements of a warrant, with the production of a confidential informant and the right for the accused to be confronted with the | witnesses against him. United States v. Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.83 (1963), Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. 1. Did the lower courts err in deciding whether counsel for the defendant met the standards of the aba standards for criminal justice? 2. Did the lower courts hinder Brady/Giglio material of a CI and the corruption that took place with the lab chemist on Mr. Sangster’s case? 3. Last but not the least, did the lower courts err in establishing whether or not Mr. | Sangster employed the use of legally purchased firearms in furtherance of a drug | trafficking crime that was nonexistent? | | | | | ii