1. Whether the prosecution violated Brady v Maryland when it suppressed exculpatory

forensic evidence concealed the absence of any Alabama autopsy and falsely implied the

existence of a later autopsy that supported a gunshot theory which contradicted its own

medical examiner.

2. Whether racial discrimination in jury selection violated Batson v Kentucky when the

prosecution struck nearly every African American juror leaving a single African American

juror on a twelve person panel.

3. Whether due process was violated under Napue v Illinois and Giglio v United States when

the State relied on coerced and incentivized testimony from witnesses who were threatened

with death penalty exposure criminal charges loss of children or immunity manipulation.

4, Whether the conviction is unsupported by evidence under Jackson v Virginia where no

physical evidence tied Petitioner to the crime and the only forensic autopsy proved

strangulation in Mississippi rather than gunshot in Alabama.

5. Whether Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v

Washington when counsel failed to investigate failed to call alibi witnesses failed to

challenge the gunshot theory and failed to object to Batson violations.

6. Whether prosecutorial misconduct including theory shifting inflammatory arguments

racialized insinuations and misrepresentation of forensic findings violated due process under Berger v United States and Darden v Wainwright.

7, Whether Alabama’s Rule 32 process failed to provide meaningful review in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment when the petition was dismissed without discovery without a

hearing and without addressing jurisdiction Brady violations or coerced testimony.

Wn — 2

Murray Lawrence Jr

AIS 00241380 .

Date: 7 / “19 “2.4

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. In United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559-60 (1988), this Court held that a defendant’s confrontation rights are not violated by the introduction of a witness’ out-of-court identification, even if the testifying witness has memory loss. This Court explained further in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 fn. 9 (2004), that admission of out-of-court testimonial statements are admissible “so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.”

The question presented here 1s: When a witness makes recorded statements to police identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime, but suffers complete memory loss prior to testifying at trial, does the introduction of that witness’ out-of-court testimonial statements violate the Confrontation Clause?

1