Sixth-Amendment-right-to-fair-trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW _ Questions One Preface: oo. ; : Prior to Petitioner's trial, defense counsel requested the court to investigate the possibility the jury would be bias because of prejudicial pre-trial publicity “ with a Motion for a Test Jury to Determine Prejudice Due To Pre-Trial Publicity, the court denied the motion holding it would address the issue at “. ; the upcoming trial voir dire. The potential jurors were never questioned on ‘ this issue. : Question One: , Does a State Court violate a criminal defendant his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rights : to Due Process of law when a trial court denies his defense counsel’s pre-trial motion to investigate potential jury bias due to prejudicial . pre-trial publicity and completely fails do any investigation and questioning of the jurors concerning whether or not they had read the prejudicial pre-trial publicity and if so could they ignore it and render 7 a verdict solely on the evidence, inaction which was completely contrary to clearly established Indiana and Federal Law? Questions Two Preface: : . On the fifth day of trial is was brought to the courts attention that ajurorhad , withheld on initial voir dire that he was a friend and sports teammate of the trial prosecutor's husband and that they had met at a local restaurant during a trial juror lunch break. The court never investigated the issue by . questioning the juror or the prosecutor's husband and declared: "this may be one of those times ignorance is bliss”. . "Question Two: Does a State Court violate a criminal defendants Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rights to Due Process of law when a trial court learns during the trial that a sitting juror was a friend and sports teammate of the trial prosecutor's husband and fails . a q . 4 . to investigate the possibility the friendship would bias the jury in favor of the . state, and the Court fails to investigate why the juror failed to reveal this : ; friendship during pre-trial voir dire which denied the defendant an opportunity to make an intelligent decision whether or not to strike the juror from the panel of jurors, inaction which was completely contrary to clearly established Indiana and Federal Law? Question Three Preface: In his pro se collateral attack (Post-Conviction Proceedings) of his : convictions, Petitioner attempted to establish a record of evidence by , questioning witness prior to and at his evidentiary hearing. However, the Post-Conviction judge denied all his repeated request to question his.. ; jurors by affidavits and then by interrogatories and then by subpoenaing : them to his hearing. The court also denied his request to subpoena other relevant witness to his hearing. Question Three: ; ; When a-State Post-Conviction Court of Review denies a defendant discovery by denying the defendant his right to subpoena relevant witnesses which denied him a full and fair evidentiary hearing contrary. to their Rules and Procedures and existing State and Federal opinions and rules of law, does it violate rights afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution? . u LISTOF THEPARTIES — v All Parties appear in the caption of the case on the front page. . RELATED CASES Baker v State, 922 N.E.2d 723, Indiana Court of Appeals, (Direct Appeal) (Judgment entered March 11, 2010). : Baker v State, 928 N.E.2d 890, Indiana Court of Appeals, (Direct Appeal) (Judgment entered June 28, 2010) . Baker v State, 948 N.E.2d 1169, Indiana Supreme Court, (Direct Appeal) (Judgment entered J une 23, 2011) ; . _ Baker v State, 119 N.E.3d 230 Indiana Court of Appeals, Unpub. (PC-Appeal) (Judgment. entered December 12, 2018) Baker v State, Indiana Supreme Court, Transfer Denied. : (Judgment entered May 9, 2019) . 4