Is the Pennsylvania courts inappropriately denying the United States constitutional protections of the petitioner rights in their denial of relief to ineffectiveness of trial counsel's failure to object to the structural error in the unconstitutional reasonable doubt instruction?

QUESTION PRESENTED . MR. GERALD DRUMMOND, PETITIONER, ALLEGES THE PENNSYLVANIA courts ARE PURPOSEFULLY REFUSING TO GRANT SOUGHT RELIEF WHILE KNOWING THAT PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE WITHIN THE CHARGE TO THE JURY, SPECIFICALLY, THE REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION. ante TRIAL JUDGE HAS USED THIS SAME INSTRUCTION IN NUMEROUS HOMICIDE TRIALS AND THE THIRD CIRCUIT, AS WELL AS THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME couRT, HAS . ‘ACKNOWLEDGED THE INSTRUCTION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ‘THOUGH THE STATE CONFLICTS OPINIONS WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS AS TO WHETHER COUNSEL Is INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT 10 THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY | OF THE INFIRM INSTRUCTION. THE LOWER COURTS ARE REFUSING TO “GRANT | RELIEP ' BECAUSE IT WOULD CAUSE A GATEWAY EFFECT FOR DEFENDANTS THAT SUFFERED THIS SAME INJUSTICE, OVERTLY OVERCROWDING AN ALREADY CONGESTED bysrem. RATHER THAN PROVIDING RELIEF FOR THE AFFLICTED, THE STATE COURTS: ARE USING THE FEDERAL COURT AS THEIR PERSONAL DUMPING GROUNDS AND IGNORING ‘THE MERITORIOUS CLAIMS FILED IN THEIR COURT; LIKE THAT OF THE PETITIONER'S. 7 1. IS THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS INAPPROPRIATELY DENYING THE |UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER RIGHTS IN) THEIR DENIAL OF RELIEF TO INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE STRUCTURAL ERROR IN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION? : = II " “Ee “s : Ay . TABLE OF CONTENT . : QUESTION PRESENTED... eee eee ee cee ee ccc ce cc ccc cece cece ncececeec