Whether a State violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by upholding a criminal conviction obtained through non-unanimous jury verdicts and claiming harmless error

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION ONE: Does it violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when a State upholds a conviction after ruling it was not obtained by a unanimous jury decision beyond a reasonable doubt on what crimes were committed ? = QUESTION TWO: Does a change in the law after trial constitute an "exceptional circumstance" demanding flexibility in the interests of justice when it comes to preserving a constitutional! issue for appeal? | QUESTION THREE: Does it violate the Sixth ‘and Fourteenth Amendment trial rights when a State holds a criminal defendant was convicted by non-unanimous , verdicts but also holds it is a harmless error? QUESTION FOUR: Is it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to place the burdens associated with a failure to anticipate a change in the law and object accordingly on some defendants and not others similarly situated? QUESTION FIVE: Does it violate a defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment tights when a State reviewing court speculates verdicts based on the same inconclusive nonspecific evidence that they held made the jury’s verdicts nonunanimous, especially when the bulk of that evidence was alleged to have been committed outside the State and some of that evidence did not contain all the . elements the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? QUESTION SIX: Does the Ex Post Facto Clause operate to deny a State Court from altering a common-law rule (Jury Instruction) three years after trial and post . hoc foreclose its benefits to a defendant because of his not being able to anticipate this alternation and pre-object accordingly based on the "core due process concepts of notice, foreseeability, and, in particular, the right to fair warning? i