Fs c
on my be half, as the relevant testimont of my First EYewitness of the facts of my case,Ruhen Machado
R. x
of te BNA R
wasSu RTN S R Ma
SAN
8844.WhO STATEd "EXCEPT FOR THIS CASE. THERG'S ND DNA EVIBENCE CONNECTING THE DEFENDANT TO THE VICTIM
IN THE CASE THERE'S ND CONNECTIDN DNA-WISE BETWEUNA REFERENCES SAMPIE AND THE DEPENDANT ON TRIAL.
(Ruhen Herrera For which is my queston, why is my hherty sudded by another man'sandwoman's
CONETINAT
A volation ofanaccused's right under the conpulsory prscess clause of the canstitutian's sixth and
Fr
Second questin is about the confictof inerest that my public Defendar had Accordns to
the A
of gn y the fac of ths cas. the tore refus to it what Ihad beaskserto d
Im heon
Could bave heen goins on at that thime of the facts- ..
Thee as te t he ct dhefnnt snwtry
hurpened it is the abiect of the court to find out what really happened at that time of the mcdent is and
who was resonible ForanY Ciinal behavor Fany By the Attorn usingh experensebos ths
o
wanted to clear his Calender and move an to his or her Case . . .
The reln t o

Whether the exclusion of all reliable and relevant material evidence, including the testimony of the defendant's first-hand witness, violated the defendant's right under the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments