1. Whether all juveniles are guaranteed the Sixth
Amendment right to a jury trial in the Constitution
regardless of their geographic location when the
prosecutor can unilaterally deny the juvenile a jury
trial by filing felony criminal charges in juvenile
court to intentionally deny the juvenile the Sixth
Amendment right to a jury trial when the juvenile has
a strong defense or the prosecutor has a weak case.

2. Whether the Constitution guarantees all juveniles and
this African American juvenile, who was intentionally
denied his Batson and Sixth Amendment right to a
jury trial because the prosecutor unilaterally filed
the case in juvenile court, are guaranteed their Sixth
Amendment right to a jury trial in either juvenile
court or adult court because after the case was filed
the prosecutor received evidence that the juvenile
would be acquitted and was acquitted of manslaughter
because of self defense so the prosecutor, six months
after the manslaughter case was filed, added
additional charges upon which the juvenile was
subsequently convicted in a bench trial in juvenile
court based upon the contradictory testimony of the
state witnesses which was not beyond a reasonable
doubt.

3. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
and Batson , which is mandatory, guarantees African
Americans juveniles in the U.S. a jury trial which does
not purposely "exclude members of his own race" from
the fact-finding decision in a juvenile bench trial.

4. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
applies to all juveniles in the U.S., when the juvenile
is charged with a felony crime because the prosecutor
has concurrent jurisdiction to deny a jury trial by
filing the case in juvenile court instead of adult court
where the juvenile is guaranteed a jury trial for
serious felony charges.

5. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a juvenile
jury trial when they are charged with a felony applies
to all juveniles in the same manner the constitutional
criminal rights apply to all juveniles to remain silent
in Miranda , the right to an attorney in Gideon and
proof beyond a reasonable doubt in Winship which
applies to all juveniles in the U.S.

6. Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279(1) , which denies
juveniles a jury trial, is unconstitutional because
it violates the Nebraska Constitution 1-6, the U.S.
Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth
Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth
Amendment, Equal Protection of the Law, Due
Process and Batson v. Kentucky and was timely
asserted by the juvenile.

7. Whether the Nebraska structural juvenile court
system which denies jury trials to an African
American Juvenile is unconstitutional because it
excludes the jury by allowing an all-white court
system of a prosecutor, a juvenile court judge and
a Nebraska Supreme Court which excludes blacks
and black jurors from the process in the fact-finding
decision of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the
charges.

8. Whether any rational trier of fact could have
found beyond a reasonable doubt and not by the
preponderance of the evidence the essential elements
of the crime of Tampering, because the juvenile did
not hide or destroy the gun, and Minor in Possession,
because the juvenile did not possess the gun prior to
the self defense shooting

Whether juveniles are guaranteed a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in juvenile court proceedings when prosecutors can unilaterally deny such a right by filing charges in juvenile court