When can a defense expert be excluded for failure to timely file curriculum vitae?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , ISSUES RAISED BY DEFENDANT IN pro per ON DIRECT APPEAL:: : I. WHEN THE PROSECUTION IS HIGHLY FAMILIAR WITH AN EXPERT, WAS IT A DRASTIC SANCTION FROM THE TRIAL COURT TO EXCLUDE THIS DEFENSE EXPERT FOR A FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE EXPERT'S CURICULUM VITAE, AND DOES THIS EXCLUSION DENY A DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PRESENT A MEANINGFUL DEFENSE AS DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE COMPULSORY PROCESS OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT? Ii. WHEN THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AT TRIAL WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF PREMEDITATION, WAS THE DEFENDANT DENIED HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS WHEN A JURY CONVICTED HIM OF SUCH? III. WAS DEFENDANT DENIED OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN: a. Counsel failed to comply with statutes regarding supplying a , Curriculum Vitae of his Expert Witness in a timely fashion?; . b. Counsel failed to mount any formal investigation of . evidence that was presented to him’ from Family members of the Defendant which would have exposed the jury to exculpatory evidence that would have compelled them to find a : NOT GUILTY verdict?; ce. Counsel failed to invstigate or locate an additional expert ‘witness to explain Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome which required Defendant to get in the shower immediately to prevent himself from becoming deathly i11?; : a. Counsel failed investigate and present evidence of the victim's violent character which would show deceased's probable aggression towards the Defendant and would this have further supported Defendant's Self-Defense theory, resulting in a NOT GUILY Verdict? : B. ISSUES RAISED 8¥ APPELLATE ATTORNEY ON DIRECT APPEAL: : T. DID THE FAULTY JURY INSTRUCTION ON SELF-DEFENSE VIOLATE THE , DEFENDANT'S FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND DID THIS AILING INSTRUCTION INFECT THE ENTIRE TRIAL ENOUGH THAT TRE RESULTING CONVICTION VIOLATED DUE PROCESS?; and : ; a. Did this faulty instruction cause a plain error to occur?; and : b. .Did trial counsel's unawareness and ignorance of the self-— defense statute and jury instruction (and his failure to object) create a quintessential example and unreasonable performance : under Strickland?: and c. Was the Defendant's right to a properly instructed jury violated by the giving of a legally incorrect instruction on a critical issue (self-defense)?: and — TABLE OF AUTHORITES CASES PAGE NUMBER(S) Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 5.ct. 29 (1935) . . 16, 20, 22 California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984). . : . . . 10 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 . . . . . : . » 10 Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1996) . : : . . : . Io Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. at 147, 94 S.ct. at 400 . . . 45 ‘ Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 106 S.ct. 2464 (1986) . . . al Donnelly v. peChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868 (1974) . . «20-22 | oO Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S.ct. 475 (1991) . : . . 14, 16 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 {1963} . . . . -ll, 12, 19 | Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 97 S.ct. 1730 (1977). . . . . 14 | Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263, 134 S.Ct. 1081 (2014). . . « 15, 18 , In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.ct. 1963 (1970). : . : i | Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 308, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979) . . «ll, 12, 15 . Kimmelmann v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 $.Ct. 2574 (1986) oye 18 Mooney y. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 85 5.ct. 340 © ss ss dy 22 | Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S.ct. 2704 (1987) . . . . ll Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.ct. 2052 (1984) : . passim , Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (1999) : . . 17, 21 | Washinton v. Texas, 338 U.S. 14 (1973) . : . . . . » dl | | | | | | ’ d. bid this faulty instruction cause a miscarriage of justice? II. WAS TRIAL COUNSEL CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE: a. Failed to object to improper prosecutorial statements, arguments and grossly misstated evidence?; and . b. Failed to object to an improper jury instruction on self~ | defens