Does the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals position to acquiesce to MCL 768.37 by not interfering with Michigan's jurisdiction conflict with how multiple U.S. Courts of Appeal handle the issue of Diminished Capacity and Voluntary Intoxication?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Does the 6" Circuit Court of Appeals position to acquiesce to MCL 768.37 by not interfering with Michigan’s jurisdiction conflict with how multiple U.S. Courts of Appeal handle the issue of Diminished Capacity and Voluntary Intoxication? Is the aforementioned question not an issue that needs a Federal check and balance in effort to preserve every Americans constitutional right? Is it a problem that needs to be reviewed by This Supreme Court regarding the difference in opinion amongst the Federal Circuit Courts when it comes to Diminished Capacity and Voluntary Intoxication, whereas Federal Courts generally agree with their accompanying lower state courts regarding Rule of Law pertaining to Diminished Capacity and Voluntary Intoxication? Is the 6" Circuit Court of Appeals in error of failing to acknowledge that Petitioner was denied his 14" Amendment right of Due Process to present a COMPLETE defense; said failure being based on MCL 768.37 which denies one’s 14 Amendment right to present a COMPLETE defense? Are Michigan state Courts in error [particularly in light of the amendment to MCR 6.502 (G) (3) (b)] in denying the Federal 14™ Amendment Right of Due Process to be able to present a COMPLETE defense when Petitioner was forced to deny the primary defense in his case? [See (TT -1, Line 21 (from pg. 3 of 2012 Motion to Remand), on the record, the prosecutor objected to the voluntary intoxication defense before this defense was even put on the record. i . ‘ | . |