1. Whether a defendant’s right to present a defense is violated when he is precluded from offering a declarant’s out-of-court, self-inculpatory narrative that tends to demonstrate third-party culpability where the circumstances clearly indicate the statement’s trustworthiness; whether the _ state- ment offered by Petitioner was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) because it was, in context, a declaration against penal interest?

2. a) Does empaneling an anonymous jury violate the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and public trial, and the right to an impartial jury, in the absence of grounds for finding that alleged obstructive conduct of the defendant related to tampering with or threatening witnesses, jurors, or other trial participants; b) in determining whether to empanel an anonymous jury 1n a criminal case, must the court consider alternatives to full ano- nymity and state its reasons for denying such rehef?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED |

The State of Texas long ago implemented an electronic court filing system, and mandates its use in all cases, even by pro se litigants. Hence, all parties must rely upon that system — and faithful comport of due process by the given state court with that same electronic court filing system — including when that same system clearly reports a filing and/or service error. This petition presents recurring questions about constitutional minimums of notice, jurisdiction, and access to a judicial forum when a State mandates exclusive electronic systems for service and filing.

The State of Texas has 457 numbered district courts. Similarly, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and other States have variously numbered judicial circuits and/or district courts. This petition presents the issue of the numeric court designation as a “clerical error” under the scope of nunc pro tune.

1. Whether the Due Process Clause permits a court to grant dispositive relief when

the State mandates exclusive electronic service, the State’s own service record.

affirmatively reflects failed delivery “ERROR”) of the motion paper, the judge-

signed hearing notice appears without proof of service, and without requiring | additional steps reasonably calculated to provide notice before proceeding.

2. Whether the Due Process Clause permits a state court to use a nunc pro tune order to retroactively substitute the court of rendition by changing the identity of the rendering court—treating that change as “clerical” because it “does not change the terms of the judgment as rendered”—thereby rewriting jurisdictional provenance and rehabilitating a judgment that would otherwise be void.

3. Whether due process is violated when, absent a written judicial order, clerks , accept and file-stamp jurisdictional motions challenging a judgment as void but refuse to process them for hearing or ruling, leaving no merits ruling to review.

2