Did the failure by the Kentucky Supreme Court to adjudicate the claims of error challenging the two murder convictions deny Anthony of his right to a ruling on the merits of his appeal violating Due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; and if so, in this specific instance are Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 21A.060 and SCR 1.020(l)(a) unconstitutional as applied to Anthony?

Introduction. At the conclusion of his third trial under indictment no. 2007-CR-00211, James Anthony Gray (Anthony) was convicted for the murder of his father and mother, James and Vivian Gray. Anthony was sentenced to fifty (50) years for the two murder charges and five (5) years for tampering with physical evidence to run consecutively for a total of fifty-five (55) years. The Kentucky Constitution (Ky. Const.) §115 provides for a criminal defendant to undertake one appeal as a matter of right. The Ky. Const, also requires the appeal of any imposed sentence of twenty (20) years or greater shall be taken directly to the state court of last resort the Kentucky Supreme Court. Ky. Const. §110(2)(b). Counsel on appeal raised six claims of error. In rendering its opinion the six participating member unanimously agree the tampering conviction must be reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to vacate that conviction. 2 All other assignments of error were grouped into a heading labeled “The Murder Convictions. ” Under this Heading the court did not make any factual findings nor did it make any legal reasoning to support a decision. The court merely stated the six sitting Justices were equally divided. As a result the court decreed according to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) l:020(l)(a) the Scott County trial court conviction stands affirmed. 1 To avoid confusion, James Anthony Gray will hereinafter be refered to as Anthony, and his father Jame Gray will be refered to as Mr. Gray. 2 The Kentucky Supreme Court consists of one Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. Ky. Const. §110(1). For Anthony's appeal Chief Justice VanMeter recused himself. \ Question I. Did the failure by the Kentucky Supreme Court to adjudicate the claims of error challenging the two murder convictions deny Anthony of his right to a ruling on the merits of his appeal violating Due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; and if so, in this specific instance are Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 21A.060 3 and SCR 1.020(l)(a) unconstitutional as applied to Anthony? Introduction. Anthony was indicted in 2007 and the subsequent trial resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial declared. At his second trial Anthony was found guilty, but his conviction was vacated by the Kentucky Supreme Court on direct appeal. In rendering its decision the court ruled the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Anthony's alternative perpetrator (hereinafter aaltperp) evidence. The court went on to establish Anthony had presented more than enough information to warrant admission of his aaltprep evidence. Despite the high court's ruling the prosecution re-litigated the admission of Anthony's aaltprep evidence. The trial court filed order allowing the prosecution to subponea the defense witness to a pre-trial hearing to question them under oath. The trial court also required counsel to turn over all remaining witness statements, even if the notes from counsel's work product. The court's orders granting the prosecution's request for a hearing and all witness statements allowed the prosecution to invade Anthony's defense strategy a head of trial, and interfered with counsel's ability to make strategic decisions as the trial progressed affecting the framework of the trial itself.an 3 For KRS 21A.060 see pg. 3 and for SCR 1.020(1)(1) see pg. 4. Question II. Did the trial court's failure to honor the law of the case doctrine and disregard for the writ of prohibition which allow the Commonwealth to preview alternative perpetrator evidence and subpoena and question witnesses under oath prior to trial deny Anthony of his right to present a complete defense and interfere with defense counsel's ability to make strategic decisions result in a structural error?