Whether the Court of the County of Chesterfield, Commonwealth of Virginia was allowed to prosecute this case when precedent supports the Petitioner's position that the offense should have been prosecuted in the courts of the county or city where the body of the victim was found

No question identified. : ‘ Questions Paesen TED P| The body of the alleged yictin was diseovered in the Cay | af Ridhnwond , not the tury sf hesterfield.The prosecution f failed te disclose "Byatly’ (exculpatory) moctevial tat was i ane hands of investigating aguncits. Ine pvoseeuttion , wn bad t fait Cintentionall Saied ty daeet (prestvve) avidence potentially é Fayavable to the Iebisecthe proseeuitov destroyed evidente favorable 7 4y Potitioney. Tis elling raises Substantial Seder question’ tad 2 warrant immediate eevieed by ths Court : I. why was “tnt riveurt Court of thé Couly of Chesterfield t Cammy nwealth of Virginia allawed to prosecute +i ease? where precedent supports Petitioners posrtion, Virgin A Code $ gi4 1-247 addresses the propey yore fov iomicde prosecutions 2 undev civeumstances which make 1 unknown where such od cvame was cornmnitledl to wit: | ¥ she offense shall be amenable 70 rosecution in the a routs of the county ov city whevt tre body of the victun r may be found...” MW 2. dots the Court deems it proper to protect the right, a privileges, and immunities of the accused 7 Because it WAS Py Fhe Détitioney’s Consti hatiOnal Right jo have @ Faiv Trial a in dhe City of Ziclunond, not the° County of Chesterfield. | | i : 3. Ave dhe Courts awave the Pet toners conviction was ‘ dbtaned by the unconstrtutenal fuluve of the prosecution ig jo diselase fo the defendant evidence favorable to the Petitioner? : A why ave the Courts ovevlooking the facts thet the prosecutor | destroyed exclapatory evidence that could have exonevated the 3 Petitioner? ‘ 5. Ave the Courts ame of that in the final defense motion +e . styilet , défense counsel stated “theve is no evidence thet would a vaise a ston presumption , or any presumption at all, that ths, 2 crime actually ocurred in the County o Chesterfield”? And a . thal the Common wea th responded! that “Judge, it is a legul P| issue , but the Commonwealth arguing foy jury instruction tut t vanne was not a tuctual issued tov jury detevmmnation . 4 w. 0, dd this Court deem it proper, +0 nT notify the q jury in Chesterfield County, that a cvimé was not commitled : nm Chestevfield County but in the (ity of Richmond ? { 7 50, why wasnt this case prosecuted in the City of Kichinny 4 where the victim's body and property was discowred ? 4 B. tow) wasnt jury nstrucfion that venue ioas a faclual issue 1 not given to ht jurovs fhy Jurys détermnation ?