Whether the Fifth Amendment right to be free from the compulsion to make self-incriminating statements includes the right to not be required to provide evidence to substantiate claims of innocence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment right to be free from the compulsion to make self incriminating statements includes the right to not be required to provide evidence to substantiate claims of innocence, causing self-incrimination, due process, and equal protection violations. 2. Whether or not the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation includes the right to question at trial the individuals who “found” evidence which was subsequently introduced at trial, and formed an essential bit of evidence against the Defendant, causing due process and equal : protection violations. In this case, a unique situation is presented. Significantly, is one law enforcement officer allowed to testify as to the finding of allegedly significant evidence found by a different, non-testifying officer? Does this present an improper circumvention of the defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him? 3. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to competent and effective trial counsel can extend to counsel which passively allows the government (prosecutor) to make improper, inflammatory, and other impermissible statements in great frequency, to the jury at trial, without counsel making objections or requesting corrective measures from the trial court, causing due process and equal protection violations. ii eo 4. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to competent and effective trial counsel can extend to counsel which fails to subject the state’s case to meaningful adversarial testing by failing to submit a facially sufficient motion for judgment of acquittal, causing due process and equal protection violations. 5. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective trial counsel can extend to trial counsel who abandons an essential argument of the defense without consultation with the intelligent and active defendant, to the defendant’s detriment at trial, causing a due process violation. 6. Whether the state courts err when they block submission of evidence that another person may have committed the crime, in violation of due process rights, and contrary to this Court’s decision in Holmes v. South Carolina, causing due process and equal protection violations. 7. Issue Seven below is waived before this Court, due to the correct application in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.