This courts precedent in the united states Vi Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 set. (2019), Kentucky v. Batson, 476 U.S. 79, Miller-elv.dretke, 545 U.S. 231 Esparza-Gomez, v. united states, 422f.3d897 (atlar 2005)...(1)

Whether the defendant has been denied the right to trial by an impartial jury, when racial discrimination in jury selection compromises the right of trial by impartial jury, which undermines public confidence in adjudication; U.S. supreme court consistently and repeatedly reaffirms that racial discrimination by the state in jury selection offends the equal protection clause; fourteenth amendment.

(2) Whether, the defendant, has established prima facie case of intentional discrimination under Batson with respect to (removal) of a single last black juror #21 racially cognizable, be a use states waiver of all. allotted peremptory strikes that resulted in removal of known juror #21 without cause, and state failure to provide race-neutral explanation.

(3) Whether or not struck jury system, peremptory challenges. 13r07cea. Ferguson, Jr, Washington practice criminal.procedure sect. 4002 atl65(1997) was treated the same as exercises of peremptory strike, against a single last black juror 21 racially cognizable group.

Whether or not the state can wave all its allotted peremptory strike challenges, but intentionally failed to provide race-neutral reason, when a single last black juror #21 racially cognizable is excluded without cause, violates equal protection, under the fourteenth amendment U.S. constitution and wash, art, 1. Section 21,22

will an objective observer view race as a factor in the exclusion of a single last black juror 21 from venire without cause, which Washington state statue 2.36.100 prohibits,removal without hardship.

If this,is all shove- is.true. Mr.Ewalan'sestablished a prima facie ease, of racial discrimination in jury selection. In regards to juror #21 racially cognizable group.

Does, Erickson^and Jefferson constituted significant and material changes in the law that requires retroactive application. Exception to one year time bar RCW 10.73.100 (6) where courts judicial precedent. Held: when determing whether a rule applies retroactively, Washington state courts apply the test articulated by the united states supreme ceurt in under a new rule applies retroactively on collateral review only, if it is a new substantive rule of constitutional law or a water shed rule of criminal procedure. A rule is new for purposes of ateague analyst if it breaks new grounds or impose new obligation.

Did the trial court, court of appeals division 1 acting chief judge, and Washington supreme court acting chief commissioner abused its discretion for failure to intervene sua sponte?

Is the case of national importance, involving united states constitution. Equal protection, fourteenth amendment, why a single last black juror 21 was excluded from venire without cause.

Whether the defendant has been denied the right to trial by an impartial jury when racial discrimination in jury selection compromises the right of trial by impartial jury which undermines public confidence in adjudication