QUESTION NUMBER ONE:
The Fifth Circuit has announced a newly created rule under the principle of
"interpretati logica," and dclared: "Once a panelist in voir dire selection
verbally expresses an actual bias, that Panelist will be rehabilitated as long
as he or she remains silent for the remainer of jury selection."See Canfield
v. Lumpkin , 998 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2021). Therefore, should this Honorable
Supreme Court overrule the newly declared rule as being contrary to the found
ing Constitution and the many precedents set by this Supreme Court in Duncan
v. Louisiana , Irvin v. Dowd , and Patton v. Yount ?

QUESTION NUMBER TWO:
Because Counsel allowed an actually biased panelist to be seated as a juror,
is Justice Willett's decision contrary to Strickland for holding prejudice is
not automatic requiring a new trial under Weaver , and that Petitioner failed to
prove prejudice necessitating a new trial? see Canfield v. Lumpkin , 998 F.3d
242 (5th Cir. 2021).

QUESTION NUMBER THREE:
Being that an impartial jury trial is the cornerstone of our American
Justice System, when a panelist verbally declares to vote to convict even if
the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and announcing
her impairment to perform her duties as a juror in accordance with her instruc-
tionsandoath. Is the seating of an actually bias juror to determine guilt-inno
cence and punishment a structural error? If so., should this Honorable Court
explicitly announce that the seating of a bias juror is a structural error,
that cannot be considered harmless?

Whether the Fifth Circuit's newly created rule under the principle of 'interpretati logica' allowing rehabilitation of a biased juror is contrary to the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents