Whether the prosecutor violated the defendant's due process rights by blocking testimony, knowingly using perjured testimony, and knowingly using false testimony to obtain an indictment

Questions Presented Pro Se Post Conviction Petition On May 23, 2022, Rubini filed a pro se post conviction ~ petition. (C. 680). In this petition, Rubini raised the following claims: (1) the prosecutor violated Rubini's due process rights by blocking Cramer's testimony at the hearing on the Order of Protection (C. 687); (2) the prosecutor knowingly used Cramer's perjured testimony to obtain the conviction (C. 688-89); (3) the prosecutor knowingly used Officer Finze's false “testimony at the grand jury proceeding to obtain an be indictment (C. 692-95); (4) Cramer was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for her felony DUI; (5) the crow bar and plastic wrap should not have been allowed as evidence where it had no fingerprints and was discovered several hours after the offense (C. 700-01); (6) his counsel was ineffective for posting bond on his behalf (Cc. 702); (7) counsel was ineffective for failing to call Annie Solberg as a witness who could establish that Cramer had violated her probation, and that Rubini resided at the condo (C. 702); (8) counsel was ineffective for failing to call "our next door neighbor Tom," who could establish that Rubini had a key to the condo and lived there (C. 702); (9) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain recordings of phone calls Cramer made in October 2018, while she was incarcerated (C. 703); (10) counsel was ineffective for not allowing Rubini to testify (C. 703); (11) counsel was ineffective for not showing their joint (2 “a checking account for proof of residence, and a rent** receipt signed by Cramer (C. 703); (12) counsel was ineffective for not showing a bond ticket from October 2018, showing that Rubini posted bond for Cramer (Cc. 703). . (3 All Parties Listed All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all