Whether prejudicial joinder of unrelated counts violates the right to a fair trial,

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Isa prejudicial joinder concerning unrelated counts a fundamental violation of One’s constitutional right to a fair trial, if the facts of one incident intrudes on the other regardless of if it causes confusion to a jury or disregards the prejudice over the benefit standard contained in a rule of evidence? 2. Does this court continue to standby State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St. 3d 74, 446 N.E. 2d 779, syllabus (1983) for the proposition that that a confidential informant must be disclosed if its disclosure establishes an element of a crime or would be helpful or beneficial to the accused in preparing or making a defense to criminal charges? And would it not disregard or defeat the purpose of the rules of evidence? ; 3. Has the Supreme Courts Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) and this courts State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St. 3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio-52, 678, N.E. 2d 541 (1997) been misapplied if evidence in a double murder trial presented evidence that is legally insufficient to support a verdict but was not reversed on direct appeal? 4. Does this court continue to stand by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53; State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St. 3d 74, 446 N.E. 2d 779, (syllabus for the State of Ohio) for the proposition that “the identity of an informant must be revealed to a criminal defendant when the testimony of the informant is vital to establishing an element of the crime or would be helpful or beneficial to the accused in preparing or making their defense to criminal charges? 5. Cana search warrant issue on “probable cause” for a search based on information received from a confidential informant to believe that contraband or evidence is located ina particular place. If the search warrant affidavit is silent on the informant’s veracity, reliability or basis of knowledge and where the affiant had no personal knowledge of the confidential informant’s reliability, veracity or their basis of knowledge because the affiant had not talked to the confidential informant? ' ; : LISTED PARTIES ; [X] All parties to this proceeding are listed in the caption of this case. ii , ; RELATED CASES oe e State v. Smith Court of Common Pleas, (Trial Court Montgomery County, Ohio Case No. Judgement entered on September 2, 2022. ; ¢ State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4565, 2023-Ohio-4565; 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4389; 2023 , WL 8670757 (Ohio Second Appellate District Case No. 29597. Entered on December 15, 2023. ; : e State v. Smith, 2024 Ohio LEXIS 668,(Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2024-0126. Entered on April 2, 2024. © State v. Smith. 2024-Ohio-1974, 2024 Ohio LEXIS 1156 Supreme Court of Ohio decision on Reconsideration declining review, Entered on May 28, 2024.