Questions One Preface:
Prior to Petitioner 's trial, defense counsel requested the court to investigate
the possibility the jury would be bias because of prejudicial pre-trial publicity
with a Motion for a Test Jury to Determine Prejudice Due To Pre-Trial
Publicity , the court denied the motion holding it would address the issue at
the upcoming trial voir dire. The potential jurors were never questioned on
this issue.

Question One:
Does a State Court violate a criminal defendant his Sixth Amendment
rights to a fair trial and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rights
to Due Process of law when a trial court denies his defense counsel 's
pre-trial motion to investigate potential jury bias due to prejudicial
pre-trial publicity and completely fails do any investigation and
questioning of the jurors concerning whether or not they had read the
prejudicial pre-trial publicity and if so could they ignore it and render
a verdict solely on the evidence, inaction which was completely
contrary to clearly established Indiana and Federal Law?

Questions Two Preface:
On the fifth day of trial is was brought to the courts attention that a juror had
withheld on initial voir dire that he was a friend and sports teammate of the
trial prosecutor 's husband and that they had met at a local restaurant during
a trial juror lunch break. The court never investigated the issue by
questioning the juror or the prosecutor 's husband and declared: "this may
be one of those times ignorance is bliss".

Question Two:
Does a State Court violate a criminal defendants Sixth Amendment
rights to a fair trial and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rights to Due
Process of law when a trial court learns during the trial that a sitting juror
was a friend and sports teammate of the trial prosecutor 's husband and fails
to investigate the possibility the friendship would bias the jury in favor of the
state, and the Court fails to investigate why the juror failed to reveal this
friendship during pre-trial voir dire which denied the defendant an
opportunity to make an intelligent decision whether or not to strike the juror
from the panel of jurors, inaction which was completely contrary to clearly
established Indiana and Federal Law?

Question Three Preface:
In his pro se collateral attack (Post-Conviction Proceedings) of his
convictions, Petitioner attempted to establish a record of evidence by
questioning witness prior to and at his evidentiary hearing. However,
the Post-Conviction judge denied all his repeated request to question his
jurors by affidavits and then by interrogatories and then by subpoenaing
them to his hearing. The court also denied his request to subpoena other
relevant witness to his hearing.

Question Three:
When a State Post-Conviction Court of Review denies a defendant
discovery by denying the defendant his right to subpoena relevant
witnesses which denied him a full and fair evidentiary hearing
contrary to their Rules and Procedures and existing State and
Federal opinions and rules of law, does it violate rights afforded by
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution?

Sixth-Amendment-right-to-fair-trial