Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to fully present himself / herself as a witness

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Pleose help us @ The Commonwealth of Kentucky has adopted an unconstitutional pattern and practice allowing out Court appointed lawyers to blurt out te the jury thet we are qvilty. Criminal defendants are alse being refused any and all questions from our juey although our juries are permitted to question all State witnesses. This case presents several important nationwide issues. Also, this petition represents an oppoctunity for the Supreme Court to provide clarification amongst the divided circuits on what constitutes an intelligent and voluntary waiver of conflict counsel. Glenn Odom presents the questions that follow: (1) Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to fully present himself / herself as a witness. If the jury is permitted to question all state's witnesses after their testimony should a jury be denied to question the defendant after his [her testimony without a justified feason (2) whet exactly establishes that defense counsel is erating under a conflict? Also, when defense counsel asserts toa trial court thet he has a Conf Wet with his client /the defendant what isa clear line of questioning from the court to the layman defendant and lor whet constitutes a Knowing and intelligent waiver of conflict counsel @ (3) Ts ik unconstitutional for a defence lawyer te blurt out te a jury thet the defendant only denies two(a) out of six(s) Charges against the defendant's wishes © (4) When a pro se defendant mounts an objection during trial does he have a constitutional eight to attend the bench conference be acticvlate his objection % (i) ; (s) Dees the right te question your accuser” import to questioning the absent at trial victim that never accused a defendant or just any Substitute person that testified to be an eye witness? (ii) |