Whether the misjoinder of defendants and admission of co-defendant's out-of-court statements in a joint trial violated the Petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and confrontation

1. Where the trial of eleven counts of a fourteen count indictment against five defendants was based on circumstantial evidence, requiring over twenty witnesses, and was so confusing that even the Court of Appeal could not disting uish what evidence applied to each defendant, was it error to deny the motion to quash for misjoinder? Where Petitioner’s antagonistic defense was that codefendant Robinson threatened him, his girlfriend, and their child at gunpoint, and held them hostag e after Robinson had invaded the residence to commit the murders, should Petitioner have been forced to trial with Robinson? When the State intended to use Robinson’s statements at trial, was it error to deny the motion for severance? Did the State use the misjoinder of the defendants to trample on Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial and Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of Robinson, resulting in Powell’s conviction for conspiracy and obstruction of justice because of his alleg ed association with Robinson? 2. Could Robinson’s out of court statements be used by the State in a joint trial as the essential evidence against Petitioner Kirk Powell where the State had not established the existence of a conspiracy or the criteria for the co-conspirator ex ception to apply ? Did the admission of codefendant’s statements in a joint trial violate the Sixth Amendment where Powell was prevented from cross examining Robinson about his statements in two police videos and his statements to State witnesses? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, did Robinson’s highly prejudicial hearsa y statements in the State’s otherwise circumstantial case encourag e jury speculation and contribute to the verdicts, deny ing Petitioner Kirk Powell his Sixth Amendment right to confron tation and his Fifth Amendment rig ht to due process? -i