Sean Alan Rogers v. Wyoming

Page 2 of 162 QUESTIQN(S) PRESENTED

1. Was the lack of contention by the direct appeal council of the Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial violated given the significant delay between his arrest and the commencement of the trial, contrary to the principals, ways, and means outlined in the speedy trial act and relevant state laws, thus infringing upon his rights guaranteed by the constitution?

2. Did the lack of contention by the direct appeal council of the addition of a new charge of Sexual Abuse of a Minor six business days before trial violate the Petitioner’s right to adequate notice and preparation time, thus infringing upon his due process rights guaranteed by the constitution and speedy trial act.

3. Was the petitioner denied effective assistance of counsel during trial when the attorney refused to authorize funding for DNA testing on evidence that could have been pivotal to the defense and failed to challenge the credibility of witnesses who admitted to providing false testimony, thus infringing upon his due process rights guaranteed by the constitution?

4. Did the Appellate attorney association with the same public defender’s office which represented the Petitioner during a conflict of interest at trial constitute ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, thus infringing upon rights guaranteed by the constitution?

5. Did the Wyoming courts err in failing to address the conflict of interest arising from the same public defender’s office representing both the Petitioner and a key witness, AG and Brandy Blaylock who testified against the petitioner during trial, thus infringing upon his rights guaranteed by the constitution?

6. Did the District Attorney’s reliance on discredited testimony compromise fairness of the trial, thus infringing upon his rights guaranteed by the constitution?