Noel Brown v. Pennsylvania

WAS DECISIONS UNDER TITLE Vll ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT A PERSON CLAIMING THAT HE HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION MAY MAKE GUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE BY RELYING SOLELY ON THE FACTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM?

WAS THE COMMONWEALTH ASSERTS THAT TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THERE ARE NO RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN TRANSCRIBED, A CLEAR AND REASONABLE SPECIFIC LEGITIMATE REASON FOR RESPONDENTS RESPONSE BEING WHOLLY INADEQUATE, AND NOT CONTAIN THE PROCEEDINGS, VOIR DIRE, PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS, COMMITMENT PAPERS, DECISIONS BY JUDGE, DEFENSE MOTIONS, FELONY COMPLAINT, INDICTMENT & WORKSHEET, JURY NOTES, PEOPLES RESPONSES, PRO-SE MOTIONS, ROSARIO LIST, TRIAL EXHIBITS SHEET, VDF, VERDICT SHEET, WITNESS LIST, WAIVER OF COUNSEL SHEET, PRE-SENTENCE REPORT, ARRESTING OFFICER ON DIRECT, ARRESTING OFFICER ON CROSS, OR JURY DELIBERATIONS?

IN BATSON V. KENTUCKY, ALONG WITH ITS COMPANION CASE PEOPLE V. MOTTON, THE COURT RULED THAT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NO STATE CAN DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. FOR EXAMPLE IN ONE CASE, A CONVICTION WAS REVERSED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NO BLACKS WERE ON THE JURY THAT CONVICTED A INNOCENT BLACK MAN. IN ANOTHER DISCRIMINATION CASE, A FINDING OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IS A FINDING OF FACT, THE COURT STATED. FACT ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE DEFERENCE BY A REVIEWING COURT. A REVIEWING COURT ORDINARILY SHOULD GIVE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE REPORT AGAINST WHICH OBJECTIONS ARE MADE GREAT DEFERENCE, THE COURT MUST DETERMINE IF A REVIEW OF THE RECORD EVIDENCE PLAIN ERROR OR MANIFEST INJUSTICE. A COURT MAY CONSIDER MATTERS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE OR INTEGRAL TO THE CLAIM, MATTERS OF FUBLIC RECORDS AND ITEMS APPEARING IN THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: A. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN BATSON V. KENTUCKY, ALONG WITH COMPANION CASE PEOPLE V. MOTTON, THAT A ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX RASTAFARIAN CONVICTED OF CRIMES BY AN ALL WHITE JURY, DRAWN FROM AN ALL WHITE VENIRE CANNOT BE SENTENCED TO THIRTY TWO YEARS, EQUATING TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT GIVEN THE AGE OF THIS PETITIONER WITHOUT TESTIMONY OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. UNLESS THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? B. DOES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THAT THE PETIT JURY BE SELECTED FROM A POOL OF NAMES REPRESENTING A CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY? C. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN FED. R. CRIM. P.21. THAT THE COURT MUST SHOW PRESUMPTIVE OR ACTUAL PREJUDICE AS A DEMONSTRABLE REALTY NOT MERELY AS A MATTER OF SPECULATION. AS VENUE IN A CRIMINAL ACTION PROPERLY BELONGS IN THE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME ALLEGED AND THE ARREST WAS MADE. THUS VENUE CAN ONLY BE PROPER WHERE JURISDICTION ALREADY EXIST? D. PRESUMPTIVE PREJUDICE CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS A CIRCUS-LIKE ATMOSPHERE THAT PERVADES BOTH THE COURTHOUSE AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. VOIR DIRE IS THE PRIMARY TOOL FOR DISCERNING ACTUAL PREJUDICE? E. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN ROBINSON V. VIA AND COMPANION CASE LEE V. SANDBERG, THAT THE RIGHT TO NOT BE ARRESTED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE IS A CLEARLY ESTABLISH RIGHT, THAT AN ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PARTICULARLY THE PERSON OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED UNLESS THERE IS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? F. DOES THE SUPREME COURT HOLDING THAT RETALIATORY ARREST IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND SEARCHES CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL BY JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE, ARE PER SE UNREASONABLE UNDER THE FORTH AMENDMENT SUBJECT ONLY TO A FEW SPECIALLY ESTABLISH WELL DELINEATED EXCEPTIONS. THE EXCEPTION ARE SAID TO BE JEALOUSLY AND CAREFULLY DRAWN. UNLESS THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? G. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN McCOY V. LOUSIANA, IN WHICH THE COURT ADDRESS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DEFENCE COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES, AND HELD THAT AN ATTORNEY DENIAL OF A CLIENTS AUTONOMY TO DECIDE THE OBJECTIVE OF HIS DEFENCE IS PER SE PREJUDICIAL? H. IS IT THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, STATE SUPREME COURT, DISTRICT COURT, COURT OF APPEALS TO FOLLOW THE DECISIONAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT? I. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, APPLY ON REVIEW THAT PETITIONER IS WHOLLY INNOCENT, AND IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES? J. THEY'RE AUTOMATIC ADJOURNMENTS WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED TO, UNLESS THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES? K. THAT A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE CANNOT BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE SWORN TESTIMONY UNDER OATH BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT UNLESS THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? L. SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL, AS INCORPORATED AGAINST THE STATE BY WAY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, REQUIRES A UNANIMOUS VERDICT TO CONVICT DEFENDANTS OF SERIOUS OFFENSES? M. SHOULD A MAGISTRATE OR FEDERAL JUDGE GOVERN IN MULTIPLE CASES FOR THE SAME PARTY AT THE SAME TIME, WITHOUT NOTICE TO PARTY OF THE ASSIGNMENT? N. SHOULD REQUEST FOR COUNSEL BE GRANTED IF PETITIONER IS FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION IF INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRE IT?