Whether the defendant has been denied the right to trial by an impartial jury when racial discrimination in jury selection compromises the right of trial by impartial jury which undermines public confidence in adjudication

No question identified. : Question's. presented . This courts precedent in the united. states v:. Flowers ve Mississippi, 139 sct. (2019), Kentucky v. Batson, 476 U.S. 79, . . a Miller-elv.dretke, 545 U.S. 231 . Esparza-Gomez, v. united states, 422f.3d897 (atlar 2005)...(1) ee ; Whether the defendant has been denied the right to trial by an impartial jury. . when racial discrimination in jury selection compromises the right of trial by impartial jury. which undermines public confidence in adjudication; U.S. supreme . court consistently and repeatedly reaffirms that racial discrimination by the state in jury selection offends the equal protection clause; fourteenth (2) Whether, the defendant, has established prima facie case of intentional discrimination under Batson with respect to (removal) of a single last black ; 7 juror #21 racially cognizable, be a use states waiver of all. allotted peremptory " strikes that resulted in removal of known juror #21 without cause, and state _ failure to provide race-neutral explanation. a . (3) Whether or not struck jury system, peremptory challenges. 13r07cea. Ferguson, Jr, Washington practice criminal procedure sect. 4002 at165(1997) was treated the | same as exercises of peremptory strike, against a single last black “juror 21 racially cognizable. group. : ; . . Questions . : . a ; So . Mr.Ewalan, asks the court which comprises of all nine justices.. Whether or not the state can wave all its allotted peremptory strike challenges, but intentionally failed to provide race-neutral reason, when a single last black | . juror #21 racially cognizable is excluded without cause. violates equal protection, under the fourteenth amendment U.S. constitution and wash. art, 1. Section 21,22 Oo . . . Note:. Washington state. statue RCW 2.36.100 prohibits exclusion of black prospective jurors. from venire without cause or hardship. will an objective observer view race asia factor in: the exclusion of a single Oo last black juror 21. from venire without cause, which Washington ‘state statue . 2.36.100 prohibits removal: without hardship. . If this .is.all above: is. true. Mr.Ewalan's: established a prima facie case, of racial discrimination injury selection.: In regards to juror #21 racially oo cognizable group. . . | ; 7) | | : . Does, Erickson.and. Jefferson constituted: significant and material changes in the ¥ Law that requires retroactive application.. Exception to one year time bar RCW. 10.73.10 (6) where courts judicial precedent. Held: when determing whether a : rule applies: retroactively, Washington state.courts apply the test articulated by the united states supreme.ceurt -in under. a new rule applies retroactively on _ collateral review only, if it-is a new substantive rule of constitutional law or _ a water shed tule of criminal procedure. A rule is new-for purposes of ateague . analyst if it breaks new grounds or impose new. obligation. a eo | | | Did the trial court, court of appeals division.1 acting chief judge, and a Washington supreme court acting chief commissioner abused its discretion for oe failure to intervene sua: sponte? : & | | Is the case of. national importance, involving united states constitution. Equal protection, fourteenth amendment, why.a single last black juror 21 was excluded . from venire without cause. : . ; . Racial discrimination is huge in this country, and the rest of the world. People : with practice get fired from positions of jobs, even criminally charged if ‘ physical harm results. atl) ee ;