Dan Luo v. California

Whether charging negligent manslaughter, California Penal Code §192(b), in “building a residence with criminal negligence,” and refusing to identify specific overt acts constituting the “building of a residence,” which undefined conduct resulted in the death of a construction worker, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated Petitioner’s rights under Amendments V, VI, and XIV of the U.S. Constitution.

Whether the prosecution’s failure to introduce expert testimony that Petitioner’s conduct in “building a residence with criminal negligence,” fell below the standard of care of those in the industry engaged in similar activities, and resulted in a conviction of Petitioner without proof of the elements of the criminal offense, violating Petitioner’s right to due process and a fair trial.

Whether the charged crime of “building a residence with criminal negligence,” was so vague, ambiguous, and ill-defined, no effective defense could be articulated to a crime that encompassed essentially everything ever done in connection with the building of a residence, thus denying Petitioner the right to effective assistance of counsel, due process, and a fair trial.

Whether the instruction to the jury consisting of a 44-page California Occupational Safety and Health Administrative Regulation (hereinafter Cal/OSHA)