Whether a state court's failure to address a pro se pre-trial motion raising violations of mandatory warrant issuance and probable cause determination under state law (22 O.S. § 171) and federal constitutional standards (Gerstein v. Pugh), when the motion is not adopted by appointed counsel, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment.

Whether the disqualification from prosecution or continued detention without a judicial probable cause determination following a warrantless arrest, based on alleged official neglect, violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether the failure to conduct a timely preliminary examination or issue a mandatory arrest warrant, leading to prolonged detention and prosecution, violates the speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly when such delays exceed eight months without legislative justification.

Whether trial counsel's failure to adopt or litigate a pro se motion for dismissal or mandamus relief based on warrant and probable cause defects constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the evidence and law supported such actions and could have resulted in pre-trial dismissal.

Whether a state court's failure to address a pro se pre-trial motion raising violations of mandatory warrant issuance and probable cause determination under state law and federal constitutional standards violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment, and whether trial counsel's failure to adopt or litigate such motion constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel