Claudia C. Hoerig v. Shannon Olds, Warden

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 1 (related to COA Claim One) (l)(a) Whether a Petitioner who claims that "the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's Criminal Rule-29 Motion for Acquittal for Insufficiency of the Evidence as a matter of law" has raised a legitimate constitutional claim under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 at 317 n.10 and 318 n.ll, which provides a mechanism for relief under the Fifth Amendment, adopting "the Curley test" prescribed in Curley, 160 F.2d 229 at 232-233 (1947, CA D.C.), which entitles Petitioner to a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law (within the meaning of Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S, at 234, 237) when two conditions are satisfied: (1) when the defendant testifies and establishes reasonable doubt by a preponderance of the evidence, and (2) when the State fails to disprove an element of a "negative-defense" thus failing to create a genuine dispute of fact for the jury to decide? (l)(b) Whether Petitioner suffered prejudice without ever having an opportunity to have the true merits of her "Jackson-Curley" constitutional claim decided due to the Sixth Circuit's refusal to recognize a fairly presented due process question because of its long-standing inconsistent view on "sudden passion" as a traditional defense to murder, which is raised by the defendant by a preponderance and disproved by the prosecution as part of its intermediate burden?