Question One Preface: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled petitioner had a state
required due process right to a unanimous jury verdict; then acquiesced he had been
denied this right because the unanimity instruction his jury was given was fatally
ambiguous; then ruled it was a harmless error; then superseded the jury 's duty by
directing a verdict for the state bases on evidence of crimes allegedly committed
outside the state and Indiana court 's jurisdiction.

Question One: Is it a denial of due process when a state imports a due process right
and then acquiesces the defendant was denied this right and then arbitrarily takes
it away by superseding the jury and directing a verdict for the state based on evidence
of crimes allegedly committed outside the state and all the state courts jurisdictions.

Question Two: Does it violate due process of law and the proscriptions under the
state and federal constitutions against ex post facto laws when the state is allowed to
revive a previously expired statutorily commanded limitations deadline by making a
newly enacted law retroactive when it was not a "watershed " law that was not
constitutionally based?

Question Three: Does the Due Process Clause still require an adequate voir dire to
identify unqualified jurors in the United States? Can a reviewing court impede a
defendant the right to investigate constitutional violations of an inadequate voir dire
and then deny his claim based on an inadequate investigation?

Is it a denial of due process when a state imports a due process right and then acquiesces the defendant was denied this right and then arbitrarily takes it away by superseding the jury and directing a verdict for the state based on evidence of crimes allegedly committed outside the state and all the state courts jurisdictions?