Whether a dual-role jury instruction is required when law enforcement officers testify as both expert and percipient witnesses

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | (1) WHETHER REVIEW IS WARRANTED TO DETERMINE IF A DUALROLE JURY INSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED, WHEN _ LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS LIKE AGENT FUTCH AND CID STATE AGENT GOODMAN, TESTIFY AS BOTH AN EXPERT AND PRECIPIENT WITNESS. . (2) WHETHER BY REASON OF NUMEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS COMMITED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, .SUCH AS INTERVENING IN BRADDOCK'S PLEA AGREEMENT IN VIOLATION OF RULE 11(C), CONSTRUCTIVE DENIAL . OF COUNSEL(S), PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, OUTSIDE THE INDICTMENT PROCESS, AND A BIASED JUDGE WHO ABUSED HiS DISCRETION, BY NOT FOLLOWING THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS OF PROCEDURE, THE COURT LOST SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, FOR WHICH ONLY THE SUPREME COURT CAN REMEDY THE SITUATION, AND RIGHT THIS EGREGIOUS WRONG, THROUGH THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION. . (3) WHETHER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ERRORS COMMITTED BY PETITIONER BRADDOCK'S THREE ATTORNEYS IN (TWO TRIALS AND A PLEA AGREEMENT). THAT MAY BE HARMLESS BY THEMSELVES, COULD SO PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO FAIR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT THESE ERRORS RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CONSTRUCTIVE DENIAL OF COUNSEL, ONE OF THE SEVEN STRUCTURAL ERRORS, DESIGNATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. . : :