Federal Circuits have broadly held that the Perry v. Leeke and
U.S. v Geders decisions protect the right to discuss testimony on
an extended or overnight recess, yet many state courts have
declined to follow. Although this is a matter of first impression
in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court has declined to rule on the
issue.

Under the Sixth Amendment, does a defendant forfeit the right to
directly challenge the court's order appeal on the grounds of complete
actual or constructive denial of counsel on an extended recess due to
defense counsel's and/or defendant's failure to object to a sequestration
order in the trial court, where no colloquy was conducted with the
defendant?

Does a trial court violate the Sixth Amendment where, absent
colloquy with the defendant, it applies an order that restricts client-
counsel discussion of his testimony on an overnight recess?

Article I § 10, clause 1, of the Federal Constitution protects
parties from ex post facto impairment of a contract. An accused
driver seeking an independent chemical test is subjected to
substantively different terms than those stated to him in the
consent agreement, Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4), by the application of
Wis. Stat § 343.305(5)(a) after the fact.

Is WIS.STAT. § 343.305(5)(b) an ex post facto impairment to the
contractual agreement between the State and an accused driver in WIS.
STAT. § 343.305(4), in violation of United States Constitution Art. I § 10,
clause 1, and Wisconsin Constitution Article 1, § 12?

Was the petitioner deprived of a reasonable opportunity to obtain an
additional test of his own choosing provided in WIS. STAT. § 343.305(4)
by way of the constitutional impairment described above?

An instance where a jury panelist failed to disclose their
presence and interactions in the immediate aftermath of the
event represents a matter of first impression (to the knowledge
of Petitioner,) and requires a distinct examination under
McDonough Power Equipment.

Under the Sixth Amendment, does a defendant forfeit the right to directly challenge the court's order appeal on the grounds of complete actual or constructive denial of counsel on an extended recess due to defense counsel's and/or defendant's failure to object to a sequestration order in the trial court, where no colloquy was conducted with the defendant?