Did the unethical and arbitrary act/action of the US Attorney of passing out candy in the midst of the petitioner's trial to the empaneled jury completely taint the entire legal process so as to purposely impede the pursuit of justice and providing of a substantial defense and eviscerate the petitioner's Constitutional rights in the first instance?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the unethical and arbitrary act/action of the US Attorney of passing out candy in the midst of the petitioner's trial to the empaneled jury completely taint the entire legal process so as to purposely impede the pursuit of justice and providing of a substantial defense and eviscerate the petitioner's Constitutional rights in the first instance? 2. Did the federal agent's documented lack of training in recognizing that an interpreter was needed in the legal case of the petitioner during the questioning in the first instance due to the present Janguage barrier prevent full disclosure and transparency of the matter of legal jecpardy to the Detitioner and so taint the judicial process so as to condemn the petitioner of the alleged conduct even before the trial for which he stood accused of? 3. Does the advisement of the petitioner by the federal agent (Atkins) of the rights of Constitutional]y protected due process that was explained as "Conscious" rights instead of "Constitutional" rights suffice as fair notice under the law of obtaining consent for a Fourth Amendment search and/or advisement of rights under the "Miranda v Arizona," 86 S Ct 1602 (1966) Standard to a person whom has very limited understanding of the legal case and English Language spoken when this is not an accepted manner to which a person's Constitutional rights are orated, explained, or dictated to the accused? 4. Did the instruction by the federal agent for the petitioner to open a package that was not addressed to him nor was he expecing delivery of provide a knowing instruction to violate the plain language of Title 39 USC § 3004 that was meant to continue the deprivation of protections accorded under the Fourth Amendmentto the US Constitution? 5. Did the appellate court provide for an act of misconduct and malfeasance when it failed to take into account the facts of the petitioner by quickly and promptly affirming judgment when valid facts were presented to refute the government's assertions regarding these issues? i N t .