WAS PETITIONER NOT OWED THE MIMISTERIOL DUTY BU THE JS. DIBTRICT COURT OF A FOL AND FOIR HEARING OF TUE FIIED S ZZSY LOBEAS CRPUS?

ACCORDING TO US. CONSTISUTION AMENDMENTS V, IX, AND CLEVELAND BOPRD OF Ed. V LOUDERMILL. 1OS S.CT 1487 (1985) : WERE NOr PETITIONERS RIGHTS VIOLATED WHEN THE US. DIBTRICT COUNT FAIED TO RECOGNIZE" NEW EVIDENCE"OF DEFECTIVE INDICTMETT WHEN CONSIDERIMG THE (ANGUALE OF FRCP I #7, AS WELl As FR OF EVID 301,# 4O1 AnD H 902?

ACCORDING TO U.S. CONSTITUTION AMNDMENT V, AND TEXDS CONSTITUTION ARNCIES S 1.04, $ 1.05, $ 21.01, AND 9 21.02(9) DID THE STATE OF TEXAS HAVE PROPER JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE AND COWICT PETITIONER WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S SIGMATURE ON THE INDICTNENT DOCUMENT WHERE IT SPECIFIES THOT OF THE GROND JUY FOREMAN?

ACCORDING TO 28 USC S.47 DND/OR 28 USC& 45S WAS IT APPROPRIATE FOR JUDGE DUNCAN TO ADJUDICOTE TO REQUEST FOR PONE REHEARING BEING AS HE DENNED TLE MOTIan SOR COA?

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THE PROSECUTION OF A CRIME THOT THE VICTEM COMTENDS WAS NOT A CRIME BUT AN ACCIDEMT, THLE DEFENDANT WOS ARRESTED TOO MONTHS BEFORE THE COMPIANT WAS. FILED, THE " CRYOVT "WITNESSES (PIURZA DIDD'T IEGALY QUALIFY AS SUCH, THE DISSRICT ATTORNEY SIGNET THE INDICTMENT ERRONEOUSY, AND LABEAS RELIEF 1S ELUSIVE?

Whether the petitioners' rights were violated under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution