Was the Petitioner's right to the presumption of innocence and to due process violated when the Petitioner's capital murder trial was conducted in this jail facility?

No question identified. : QUESTI ON PRESENTED The Pet itioner’s capital murder trial was held in this facility: The Suprem e Courts of Oreg on and Washington held this is inherently prejudicial and erodes the presumption of innocence. Oregon v. Cavan, 337 Ore. 433, 98 P.3d 381 (Or. 2004); Washington v. Jaime, 168 Wn2d 857, 233 P.3d 554 (Wash. 2010). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, with one judge dissenting, disagreed and reversed the unanimous lower co urt of appeals. Was the Petitioner’s right to the presumption of innocence and to due process violated when the Petitioner’s capital murder trial was conducted in this jail facility? ii LIST OF PARTI ES All parties appear in the cap tion of the cas e on the cover page. RELATED CASES Nixon v. Texa s, 674 S.W.3d 384 (Tex . App. San Antonio 2023, pet. granted), reversed by, remanded by Nixon v. Texa s, No. PD-0 556-23, 2024 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 49 (Tex . Crim. App., No v. 20, 2024). iii