Luster Pernell Burns, Jr. v. Jeff Tanner, Warden

I. DID THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT IN A PREVIOUS TRIAL WHICH GOATED THE DEFENSE INTO MOVING FOR A MISTRIAL, WHICH BARRED RETRIAL IN THIS CASE PURSUANT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY? US CONST, AMS V, XIV; MICH. CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 15, 17, 20. II. WAS PETITIONER DENIED A FAIR TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF JUROR MISCONDUCT, WHERE A DELIBERATING JUROR WAS EXPOSED TO EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES, WHICH CREATED A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT IT COULD HAVE AFFECTED THE JURYS VERDICT, AND THE JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE JUROR TO CONTINUE TO DELIBERATE WITH THE OTHER JURORS WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING PURSUANT TO REMMER V UNITED STATES, 347 U.S. 227 (1954)? US CONST, AMS V, VI, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §§ 17, 20? III. WAS PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE? US CONST, AMS V, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §§ 17, 20?