Whether the State of California lacked territorial subject matter jurisdiction over an alleged homicide on a foreign-flagged ship on the high seas, both as a matter of statutory construction and due process, especially when one superior court judge effectively overrules another superior court judge who has already dismissed the same charge for lack of such jurisdiction.

Whether, as a matter of law, statutory interpretation, federal common law, and the preemption doctrine, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right and authority to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas as reflected in federal enactments and the Articles of Confederation, preempting California's exercise of jurisdiction.

Whether California cannot justify its assertion of jurisdiction on the high seas by relying on public policy justifications such as the territorial effects theory, which were never considered by the legislature and do not apply here.

Whether the United States' entry into two separate international treaties that give the country under which a ship's flagged exclusive jurisdiction over all on-board conduct while on the high seas also preempts California's exercise of jurisdiction because Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution makes such treaties the supreme law of the land.

Whether law enforcement violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when it solicits privileged information from an obvious defense investigator and calls him at trial to disclose it.

Whether the substantial risk of prejudice when confidential defense information is intentionally obtained and communicated to the prosecution by its agent warrants dismissal because the extent to which the information was used to a defendant's detriment may never be known and any lesser remedy will not deter such prosecutorial misconduct.

Whether petitioner's rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel were violated when the trial court insisted the trial resume only two months into the pandemic under dramatically different conditions than those enjoyed by the prosecution, excluding a plastic barrier preventing petitioner from communicating with counsel during trial, social distancing that increased the distance jurors were from witnesses as much as 27 feet and sometimes blocked the defendant's view, which they viewed, widespread masking even in deliberations, and communications solely inhibited.

Whether petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated by the trial court's failure to ensure that persons without internet access had a location to view the livestream, failure to post a notice about both access to the livestream at the closed courthouse entrance, and failure to identify the persons at the entrance who would purportedly tell members of the public about the livestream website.

Whether the California law prohibiting the possession of large-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms