1. Where the trial of eleven counts of a fourteen count indictment against five defendants was
based on circumstantial evidence, requiring over twenty witnesses, and was so confusing that even
the Court of Appeal could not distinguish what evidence applied to each defendant, was it error to
deny the motion to quash for misjoinder? Where Petitioner's antagonistic defense was that codefendant Robinson threatened him, his girlfriend, and their child at gunpoint, and held them hostage
after Robinson had invaded the residence to commit the murders, should Petitioner have been forced
to trial with Robinson? When the State intended to use Robinson's statements at trial, was it error
to deny the motion for severance? Did the State use the misjoinder of the defendants to trample on
Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial and Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of
Robinson, resulting in Powell's conviction for conspiracy and obstruction of justice because of his
alleged association with Robinson?

2. Could Robinson's out of court statements be used by the State in a joint trial as the
essential evidence against Petitioner Kirk Powell where the State had not established the existence
of a conspiracy or the criteria for the co-conspirator exception to apply? Did the admission of codefendant's statements in a joint trial violate the Sixth Amendment where Powell was prevented
from cross examining Robinson about his statements in two police videos and his statements to
State witnesses? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, did Robinson's highly prejudicial hearsay
statements in the State's otherwise circumstantial case encourage jury speculation and contribute to
the verdicts, denying Petitioner Kirk Powell his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and his
Fifth Amendment right to due process?

Whether the misjoinder of defendants and admission of co-defendant's out-of-court statements in a joint trial violated the Petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and confrontation