Whether a criminal defendant's organizational rights can be challenged when a court denies relief based on procedural grounds

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ain Mckaskle v. Wiggins, 05 U.S. 16% C1934), this Honorable Court held that [the prose _defendadt must be. allowed to control. the organi zation _ond_content ot hhis_own defenses” id.,ot IT4, and thet ftIhe pro se. . defendant. is entitled to preserve actual _contol_over the ; case he chooses. to_present to the jury.” Td, ot 118. _ CAN A TRIAL CouRT DISREGARD MCKASKLE ANS PRECLUDE A._PRO SE. DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING ATS DEFENSE IN His OWN. WAY STMPLY BECAUSE | THE TATAL COURT DIsALREES. WET THE DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED DEFENSE AND FEELS THAT SucH A DEFENSE. Is A “Gap rpen”’ 2 | . | —— WouLD SucH A PRECLUSTON: BY THE TRIAL.CoueT, CONSTITUTE A_VIOLATION..OF ONES FARETIA . arenrs 2. AND Writ THE UNITED sTaTeS SUPREME CouRT TOLERATE A_UNITED STATES Couat oF APPEALS? DECT STON To DENY A PerxtromeR A CEATTFEICATE OF APPEALABIIAITY, DESPITE THE PETITIONER'S MEETING THe “DEBATABILIE | TY. STANDARD ANNOUNCED. IN SLACK wv. MCDANTEL 529 Uns. 473, (2000) t L . TABLE. OF CONTENTS Page. QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 2 w]e CKD