Whether a defendant's compulsory process rights remain unexhausted when a primary defense witness refuses to be transported to court from his prison cell to testify when three more days of trial existed to procure his presence in court

This Petitioner presents the following questions for consideration : I. In the present case, the Petitioner sought to transport a penitentiary inmate witness to testify at a murder trial via a transport order and subpoena regarding a Co -Defendant’s statements about his actions in causing the decedent’s death. On the 2nd day of a five (5) day trial that was ending early, the inmate refused while in his prison cell to be transported to court to testify. The trial court denied the Petitioner’s request to continue the matter until later that week when transport officers were avai lable. The question to consider is: WHETHER A DEFENDANT’S COMPULSORY PROCESS RIGHTS REMAIN UNEXHAUSTED WHEN A PRIMARY DEFENSE WITNESS REFUSES TO BE TRANSPORTED TO COURT FROM HIS PRISON CELL TO TESTIFY WHEN THREE MORE DAYS OF TRIAL EXISTED TO PROCURE HIS PRESENCE IN COURT II. The Petitioner offered the Co -Defendant’s statements for a non -hearsay purpose to challenge the strength of the investigation and charging decisions to present a complete defense. The trial and appellate courts denied admission of the evidence, because it was not the jury’s function to consider the strength of the investigation or charging decisions of the State. The question to consider is: WHETHER A DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO PRESENT A COMPLETE DEFENSE IS VIOLATED WHEN THE LOWER COURTS TOTALLY PRECLUDE EVIDENCE CHALLENGING THE STRENGTH OF THE STATE’S INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE AND RESULTING CHARGING DECISIONS III. In the State’s rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor assured the jury that, “my job is justice,” and she was not selling anything, over the Petitioner’s objection. The Court below affirmed the ruling since the prosecutor’s statement did not refer to a specific witness, and the statement was merely a response to a defense argument. The Court below did not consider whether the response itself went out of bounds despite Petitioner’s urging. The question to consider is: WHETHER APPELLATE ANALYSIS OF IMPROPER VOUCHING STATEMENTS (“MY JOB IS JUSTICE”) EXTENDS BEYOND ii PROSECUTOR STATEMENTS CONCERNING STATE WITNESSES ONLY, AND INCLUDES UNSWORN PROSECUTOR OPINIONS AS TO THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT ERRONEOUSLY REGARDED ONLY AS A RESPONSE IV. The trial court and the Court below prevented the Petitioner from challenging the strength of the State’s investigation and charging decisions, believing the topic would not affect the jury’s deliberation from its “central issue” whether the Petitioner was guilty or innocent. The Petitioner argued the correct central issue for the jury involved a choice between guilty and not guilty, and appellate analysis of alleged errors by the Court below using an innocence standard rendered it inherently faulty. The question to consider is: WHETHER DUE PROCESS IS VIOLATED ON APPEAL WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT REGARDS THE CENTRAL ISSUE FOR THE JURY AS THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT OR INNOCENCE VERSUS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. iii PARTIES INVOLVED The caption of the case contains the names of all the parties to this action.