Whether district court trial abuse its discretion and violated the defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether district court trial abuse its discretion and violated the defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury when it refused to grant a mistrial or, in the alternative, denied defendant request to prove actual bias regarding allegations of juror partiality? ; and i. Whether trial judge, Clark V. Owens Il, demonstrated the lack of an impartial judge i.e., actual bias, and committed structural error warranting automatic reversal, when he refused to grant a mistrial or, in the alternative, denied defendant — who is African American — request to question a certain juror regarding potential juror bias that he had identified for the trial court, that he claimed to had overheard state she was offended by evidence he had used a “racial slur” toward white people, the term “peckerwoods.” And instead stated the following reasons for his refusal and denial: “And if [Mr. Edmond] chooses to use something that would have racial overtones, | guess he uses that in language at his own risk”; “so it would be a good idea not to use that word if you don’t it to be used against you at a later time”; “[t]he defendant had been ; told in the telephone conversation, every one he does, that these phone calls are monitored, so it wasn’t like he had an expectation of privacy, that he could use a racial slur without ever having any consequences that some fact finder [i.e., jury or juror] | might not ever hear this”; and, “[y]ou know, the word came out of his mouth, and if that made someone [juror] unhappy , then it shouldn’t have came out of his mouth. He has a consequence for having made that statement.” 2. Whether trial counsel, failure to investigate potential witnesses he had been informed existed by the defendant, and provided with contact information, names, addresses and cellphone numbers of such witnesses who testimonies would have supported his innocence and would have challenged the states witnesses credibility making an adversarial testing of the state’s case, reasonable trial strategy or, amount to ineffective assistance of counsel?; and i. Did trial counsel failure to investigate, interview and called witnesses who he had been properly informed existed by the defendant, deprived defendant’s due process right to present a defense, and have witnesses in his behalf? 3. Whether district court violated defendant’s due process right to confrontaion 4. Was Petitioner denied due process under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendment right to the United States Constitution, upon his convictions. Insufficient Evidence.