Whether a non-unanimous verdict can be sustained under Ramos v. Louisiana when the record is silent on jury vote unanimity and what burden of proof applies

1. In a challeng e under Ramos v. Louisiana 590 U.S. 83, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), where the record is silent as to the votes on the verdicts, how must the unanimity of the verdict be proved to sustain the conviction? Is the lack of any evidence in the record as to unanimity of the verdict an anomaly or departure that prohibits the presumption of regularity ? Does the State have the burden of proving the verdicts were unanimous to sustain the convictions? 2. Where the uncontroverted defense evidence shows that the verdicts were not unanimous and the per curiam acknowledg es that there was nothing in the record to show the verdicts were unanimous, did the L ouisiana Court of Appeal and a majority of the L ouisiana Supreme Court err in allowing Issa Lamizana’s convictio ns to stand on less than a unanimous verdict, contrary to Ramos v. Louisiana and in violation of due process of the F ifth and F ourteenth Amendments? 3. In a trial based solely on the words of the complainants, were the defendant’s Six th and Fourteenth Amendments rights to confrontation and to a defense violated when the trial court prevented the child protection investig ator from testify ing, and prevented the defense from using newly discovered agency records, to impeach and rebut the State’s witnesses’ testimony , contrary to Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974)? Was the defendant denied his right to a defense as held in Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); Crane v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 683, 90 L. Ed. 2d 636, 106 S. Ct. 2142 (1986); and Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39 (1987)? Where the State’s case was based solely on the veracity of the claimants, was the ex clusion of impeachment, bias and motive evidence harmless? -i