Whether the denial of a speedy trial was not a constitutional right afforded by the state and to LD speedy trial fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and for the missed constitution.

Whether the trial cure mt fos oton or errsesd by hot how counsel sraten8 me lx cohctihukmce to obtain st counsel choice in 31 falrteen ucoiltion band sixt amermees to uneted sthtos the and cohtseom articie 3 sectim 26 5 the vossesed coaxeuted.

Whether 22 sthte hioc mt lpuncs imwtlal prelimimpi r and timel herrens afTmET of cos1 foun sh fourteenth uisites 2 ef 2d amerdes uncted the sttes constiiion.

Whether the tria errerej - hot peuioly court. 5 hearih9 out side t preseanlts seprhte the me f offenden jurt lor as a aaetual uidiatins senttetiihs 5 wratoen ruies circut atd couts ruie u.03 cour.

Whether deay in indIOMErT the 1nd til lUsEd prejudice lctual to me whIch UIolkTES arLO 214 amendment uoIXTn to te cohstetutes 13 united statos cohcti ution.

Whether proper w18 ssistahce h of the proceedinss appekihe levei ousei i1 ard fourteenth bnendmerts. to jiomtiny the siRh u+oted he states cohitituen.

Whether the tirtkl coort dohopehi sm fok frtr to bJE incitme-t to the at she fled to rkse due pocesS s rouNdS arrbiyhmelit. ingigmet and dpeh c i count to set the fourteenth dismissed au vidiatins my sixt ixmerdmelt risks. colstxutoni.

Question not identified.

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the state court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment