1. WAS DECISIONS UNDER TITLE VII ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT A PERSON CLAIMING
THAT HE HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION MAY MAKE GUT A
PRIMA FACIE CASE BY RELYING SOLELY ON THE FACTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGED
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM?

2. WAS THE COMMONWEALTH ASSERTS THAT TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, THERE ARE NO RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN TRANSCRIBED,
A CLEAR AND REASONABLE SPECIFIC LEGITIMATE REASON FOR RESPONDENTS RESPONSE
BEING WHOLLY INADEQUATE, AND NOT CONTAIN THE PROCEEDINGS, VOIR DIRE,
PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS, COMMITMENT PAPERS, DECISIONS BY JUDGE, DEFENSE
MOTIONS, FELONY COMPLAINT, INDICTMENT & WORKSHEET, JURY NOTES, PEOPLES
RESPONSES, PRO-SE MOTIONS, ROSARIO LIST, TRIAL EXHIBITS SHEET, VDF,
VERDICT SHEET, WITNESS LIST, WAIVER OF COUNSEL SHEET, PRE-SENTENCE REPORT,
ARRESTING OFFICER ON DIRECT, ARRESTING OFFICER ON CROSS, OR JURY
DELIBERATIONS?

3. IN BATSON V. KENTUCKY, ALONG WITH ITS COMPANION CASE PEOPLE V. MOTTON,
THE COURT RULED THAT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NO STATE CAN DENY TO
ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. FOR
EXAMPLE IN ONE CASE, A CONVICTION WAS REVERSED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NO
BLACKS WERE ON THE JURY THAT CONVICTED A INNOCENT BLACK MAN. IN ANOTHER
DISCRIMINATION CASE, A FINDING OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IS A FINDING
OF FACT, THE COURT STATED. FACT ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE DEFERENCE BY A
REVIEWING COURT. A REVIEWING COURT ORDINARILY SHOULD GIVE THE APPROPRIATE
FINDINGS AND OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE REPORT AGAINST
WHICH OBJECTIONS ARE MADE GREAT DEFERENCE, THE COURT MUST DETERMINE IF A
REVIEW OF THE RECORD EVIDENCE PLAIN ERROR OR MANIFEST INJUSTICE. A COURT
MAY CONSIDER MATTERS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE OR INTEGRAL TO THE CLAIM,
MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND ITEMS APPEARING IN THE RECORD OF THE CASE.

A. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN BATSON V. KENTUCKY, ALONG WITH
COMPANION CASE PEOPLE V. MOTTON, THAT A ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX RASTAFARIAN
CONVICTED OF CRIMES BY AN ALL WHITE JURY, DRAWN FROM AN ALL WHITE VENIRE
CANNOT BE SENTENCED TO THIRTY TWO YEARS, EQUATING TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT
GIVEN THE AGE OF THIS PETITIONER WITHOUT TESTIMONY OF THE ARRESTING
OFFICER UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. UNLESS THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER?

B. DOES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THAT THE PETIT JURY BE SELECTED
FROM A POOL OF NAMES REPRESENTING A CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY?

C.

Was decisions under Title VII also recognize that a person claiming that he has been the victim of intentional discrimination may make out a prima facie case by relying solely on the facts concerning the alleged discrimination against him?