1.Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution forbid a trial court from
allowing a capital defendant with a
questionable mental health history to decide
to represent himself in a fit of pique,
immediately following a guilty verdict?

2.Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution forbid a trial court from
disallowing a capital stand-by counsel when
he so requests.

3.Does the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution forbid a trial court from making
facetious remarks during a capital mitigation.

4.Does a trial court err in violation of the Sixth
and Fourteenth amendments in demanding
that a jury proceed to a unanimous verdict as
to death rather than deliberate on the nondeath options of, inter alia, life i mprisonment.

5.Does it violate the Sixth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution
for a trial court not to instruct a jury that
mercy can be considered during its penalty
phase deliberations, particularly when the
jury asks.

6.Are Ohio's capital sentencing statutes
unconstitutional under this Court's recent
decision in Hurst v. Florida which held that
Florida's capital sentencing laws violated the
Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury
because it required the judge, not a jury, to
make the factual determinations necessary to
support a sentence of death.

7.Is Ohio's death penalty framework is
unconstitutional. R.C. Sections 2903.01,
2929.02, 2929.021, 2929.022, 2929.023,
2929.03, 2929.04, and 2929.05 do not meet the
prescribed constitutional requirements and
are unconstitutional on their face and as
applied Hundley in terms U.S. Const.
Amends. V, VI, VIII, and XIV; Oh. Const. Art.
I, sections 2, 9, 10, and 16. Further, Ohio's
death penalty statute violates the United
States' obligations under international law.

Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid a trial court from allowing a capital defendant with questionable mental health to represent himself?