John Fitzgerald Gayles v. Arizona
1) The Question Is WHETHER The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Erroneously Allowed The State Of Arizona To Admit Testimonial State-Ments (that Was Subject To Cross Examination Through Its Declarant) And Fraudulent Evidence (Falsely Alleged as Evidence of Excited Utterance Under False Claims Averred By The Prosecutor, Mariah Thrace, Arizona Court Of Appeals Judges In The Matter), Under Arizona Rules Of Evidence 803(2)(iii) When The Alleged Statements Were Not An Excited Utterance And Also An Exception To The Rule Against Hearsay By Law), Then Introduce Them At Trial; The Jury, Without The Proper Foundation Established By Law In Order To Do So, And/or Over The Appellant's Objection.
2) The Question Is Whether The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Erroneously Allowed The State Of Arizona To Admit Alleged Victim Is Teacher So Testimonial State Matters (that Was Subject To Cross Examination Through Declarant) And Alleged Evidence Of Them Same There Alleged Statements, Through Arizona Rules Of Evidence 804(b)(6) (over 26" False "Unsupported" Claims Alleged By The Prosecutor, A Rooney Lombard, And The Trial Those In The Matter), Then Introduce Them At Trial, To The Jury, Without The Proper Foundation Established By Law" In Order To Do So, And/or Without There Relief Avid Wrong Doing (that Was Falsely "Unsupported" Alleged To of Had Been Committed By The Defendant (By The Prosecutor, Trial Judge, And Arizona Court Of Appeals Judges Denying Petitioner's Motion In The Matter, And/or Over The Appellant's Objection.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it erroneously allowed the State of Arizona to admit testimonial state-ments and fraudulent evidence through false claims and Arizona Rules of Evidence, thereby introducing them at trial to the jury without proper foundation established by law