Frederick Wayne Smith v. California

Should, the. May 2, 1 995 0Kde.fi to Show Caute/PKlma Facie. cate; The W0I/ 05 201 8 SupeKloK CouKt WKlt of habeat coKput/PKlma facle showing of violation of autonomy, and the. cuK.Ke.nt pKlma facle. alleging factual Innocence and violatlon of autonomy, make an exception and allow the CouKt to heaKlng Ve Novol falK heaKlng and tupeKtede allege tuccettlve ok abate of WKlt of habeat coKput??? Attacking the fact that pKoceduKe "CallfoKnla Rule of CouKt § 4.557.(A)(c) (2) wat clKcumvented and Defendant wat not allowed Countel, that would have addKetted factual Innocence and exhibited Autonomy violation would that be tuccettlve ok abate?? The PKlma Facie evidence that It ttlll tufflclent to ettabllth the OSC wat not Kebutted ok contKadlcted by the Ex-TKlal Countel alleging He knew the Vetectlvet Fukk, AdalK and Smith and the fact they weKe known foK gaming People. » ♦ That He knew they when he ute to be a L.A.P.P. Servant, and he i would thow the juKy and couKt X wat Innocent and tomeone elte committed the CKlmet and he would alto put me on the wltnett ttand. Countel Kett the cate without doing It and going contKaKy to my wltht, It that violation of autonomy and thould the couKt keaK the cate??? Wat not confKonted with the wltnett agalntt me, wat not affoKded the poweK o$ compultoKy pKocett, and not KepKetented effectively by competent countel, due to conflict of InteKett and violation of autonomy It that a Sixth amendment violation?