Gorham will present three brief statements with three concise questions for this Honorable Court's review.

Gorham alleged multiple Sixth Amendment rights violations: first, the right to "an impartial [and legitimate] jury[ :]" Because one juror, through deceit on voir dire, had gained a seat on the jury, though because of past and present criminal entanglements-even as the jury was seated he was facing revocation of probation and a ten year prison sentence-for crimes including those of moral turpitude (i.e., aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a woman and child), who was categorically absolutely disqualified from jury service by constitutional as well as statutory law, had been erroneously empanelled; second, his right to an impartial jury was again violated, when the Court, upon learning of this error, in blatant violation of established law, disregarded the implied bias which the situation presented, maintained him on Gorham's jury and moved his trial forward rather than dismissing the disqualified juror and sua sponte declaring a mistrial; and third, the right to effective assistance of counsel during direct appeal, when appellate counsel failed to raise the Court's abuse of discretion for not sua sponte calling a mistrial. Gorham was then illegally convicted by a jury of illegitimate composition- eleven qualified and one absolutely disqualified jurors. The bias implied when an unqualified juror is empanelled impugns all confidence in a fair trial and a just result. In finding that Gorham had failed to show a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the standard promulgated in Slack v. McDonal, 529 U.S. 473, 484(2000), but wholly misapplied it to Gorham's case. This case presents the following questions

Did the Fifth Circuit err in finding that no prejudice towards Gorham emanated from the bias implied by an absolutely unqualified juror being seated on his jury; from the Court's abuse of discretion in not sua sponte dismissing said unqualified juror and declaring a mistrial; and, from appellate counsel's failure to address the Court's abuse of discretion in this matter at that venue?

Gorham alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for, a) opening the door to testimony accusing him of domestic violence and abusive behavior, b) opening the door to the introduction of testimony of past criminal history, and c) eliciting inadmissible testimony from an expert witness attesting to the truthfulness of the complainant. Gorham was convicted in large part, by the taint this left upon his already illegitimate jury. Counsel's errors unnecessarily exposed the jury, as Justice Keel agreed, to testimony that was extraordinarily damaging to Gorham's character, and to prejudicial effect. In finding that Gorham had failed to show a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the standard set forth in Slack v. McDonald, 529 U.S. 473, 484(2000), but grossly misapplied it to Gorham. The case thus presents the following question.

Did the fifth Circuit err in finding that Gorham had not been prejudiced by his attorney opening the door to the character damaging testimony of alleged family violence, abuse and otherwise neglectful or criminal behavior and did they, likewise, err in finding that Gorham had not been prejudiced when his attorney had elicited- from an expert- inadmissible testimony in which this expert declared his accuser to be believed as absolutely truthful?

Using a hab

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in finding no prejudice from the bias implied by an unqualified juror being seated on Gorham's jury, the court's abuse of discretion in not dismissing the juror and declaring a mistrial, and appellate counsel's failure to address the court's abuse