Michael Wilford LaFlamme v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

1.) Was Petitioner prejudiced When Several Prospective furors Withheld Crucial Information Pertaining To Employment As Law Enforcement When Asked During Vior Dire, Resulting In Biased Partial Jury SeatednAnd Empaneled. Violation U.S.C.A. Const. £ 2.) Abuse Of Discretion By Seating Improperly Impanelled Police Officer On Jury Over Petitioner's Objections Insisting He Had StrickennSaid Juror. Violation U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 6 3.) Was Petitioner Wrongfully Convicted Of Intoxicated Assault Penal Code 49.07 When Toxicology Blood Results Prove He Was In Fact Not Intoxicated Or Impared. Supported By Expert Testimony. 4.) Abuse Of Discretion For Twice permitting The Amending Of Grand Jury Indictment Over Written Objections By petitioner .- 5.) Abuse Of Discretion By Trial Judge For Twice permitting all Police Officers Who Testified To Not Produce Video Evidence Requested VIA Defense Subpoena, In Both Trials Under same Cause. 6.) Trial Judge Abused His Discretion By Admitting Falsified Prejudicial Video Into Trial Over Petitioner's Objection(s) and Pleading(S). The questions before this Honorable court are: Is a criminal defendant prejudiced when several prospective jurors withhold information of employment as law enforcement then being seated as juror(s), and trial judge refuses to excuse improperly . impanelled police officer from jury over objection(s), and trying defendant for intoxicated assault when toxicology evidence prove no intoxication, then admitting falsified video into trial. Mr. LaFlamme humbly request this Honorable court exercise its / O supervisory judicial authority as the trial court has so far departed from accepted and usual couses of judicial proceedings. i.