Whether the petitioner's warrantless arrest was consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I Detective Doyle testified that oetitioner was arrested without a warrant for reckless driving. The reckless driving allegation is not supported by a complaint nor by a prompt judicial orabable cause determination. The question is: Whether the petitioner's warrantless arrest was consistent with the Fourth Amendment? And whether defense counsel failure to move to suppress evidence as fruit of an unlawful arrest was consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel? Il. Petitioner was charged and tried for only one offense of Carrying a Dangerous Weapon, with unlawful intent (CDW). This offense was charged as being committed on the same date and time and at the same place as the homicide charge. Petitioner expressed to his lawyer his innocence and provided an alibi witness who provided evidence that petitioner couldn't have committed any of the crimes because he was home at the time the crimes were being committed. During clesing arguments defense counsel told the jury, without petitioner's consent, that they were free to convict petitioner of the CDu charge The question is: Whether oetitioner's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel was violated by defence counsel's concession of guilt over petitioner's clearly expressed objective to maintain innocence? III. Christopher S Boyd presided over this case, as district court judge, during preliminary examination. By virtue of his Oath of Office Boyd swore toa | guarantee the petitioner assurance of impartiality, the presumption of ! innocence, and to remain detached from the conflict. After binding petitioner | over for trial, Soyd resigned to be appointed es chief assistant prosecuting | attorney. During trial Boyd joins the prosecution in the conflict and called a witness The question is: Whether Bayd's service as district court judge and later as trial “ z prosecutor deprived the petitioner of his due process right ta assurance that Boyd was an impartial judge? IV As prosecutor Boyd presented Timothy Fink as a cell phone location expert for the prosecution Fink testified that the petitioner's cell phone was in the area of the crime various times during the timeframe of the home invasion The prosecution relied heavily on Fink's testimony during opening and closing arguments to discredit the alibi evidence. The Michigan Court of Appeals (MCOA) ruled that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to admit Fink as a expert witness under MRE 702, but called the error harmless. The question is: Whether a false expert's opinion has a substantial and injurious effect on the juror's verdict, where it was heavily relied on by the prosecution during opening and closing arguments? . st