Did the district abuse its discretion in challenging the elected official and denying pending relief as untimely

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED DID THE DisTRICT ABURE F753 DPISCRETZOW Ce TM CHANCENC THE ELTED tll CHL) AND oon gern Te GOB ANPD-PENWVENG RELLEF — AS UMIZMELY. DID THE DISTRICT ABUSE FI DISCRETIEW’ 5 ABUSE IIS DESCRETZO/U-IN PROCEDUPALLY DEFULTZNG AN ACTUAL ZNNOCENCES <LAIM. DIP THE DISTALICT COUAT ABUSE Z75 DISCRETZO/ ZW DENYING AW EVIDENTIARY HERELNG PURSLANT TO TOWNSEND SB. SAIN, 372 US 223 0FAZLHOLLINES) ; HABRILS VS: NELSOV, 399 US 28 200TH; SCHALRO VS. LAWDRIGAN, S50 US 005, 474 CeO) WHERE TRE TRIAL COURTS FATLED JOGIVE NOTICE OF ORDERING AN | EVIDENTIARY ALARLNG, DID NET ALLOW TE QUESTION TAZAL COUNSEL, APPELLATE COMME, PID ALLOW 70 CALL. ANY WITNESSES, OR DOTCR 7O WHICE ZL WAS AT AN APPOLEMIMEWT AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME MAKING (IE ACTUALLY TD WNOCENWZ._OF. THE CRIMIE, ~~