Is it a denial of due process when a state imports a due process right and then acquiesces the defendant was denied this right and then arbitrarily takes it away by superseding the jury and directing a verdict for the state based on evidence of crimes allegedly committed outside the state and all the state courts jurisdictions?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Question One Preface: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled petitioner had a state required due process right to a unanimous jury verdict; then acquiesced he had been denied this right because the unanimity instruction his jury was given was fatally sO ambiguous; then ruled it was a harmless error; then superseded the jury’s duty by directing a verdict for the state bases on evidence of crimes allegedly committed outside the state and Indiana court's jurisdiction. Question One: Is it a denial of due process when a state imports a due process right and then acquiesces the defendant was denied this right and then arbitrarily takes it away by superseding the jury and directing a verdict for the state based on evidence . of crimes allegedly committed outside the state and all the state courts jurisdictions. ; Question Two: Does it violate due process of law and the proscriptions under the state and federal constitutions against ex post facto laws when the state is allowed to : revive a previously expired statutorily commanded limitations deadline by making a newly enacted law retroactive when it was not a “watershed” law that was not constitutionally based? . Question Three: Does the Due Process Clause still require an adequate voir dire to . identify unqualified jurors in. the United States? Can a reviewing court impede a defendant the right to investigate constitutional violations of an inadequate voir dire and then deny his claim based on an inadequate investigation? i