RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?
VI.
WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO PRE-ACCUSATION DELAY?
VII.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS VIOLATED?
VIII.
WHETHER PLEA DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN TRIAL COUNSEL AND TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE ILLEGAL? IX.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF THROUGH A LESSER FORM OF PUNISHMENT?
X.
WHETHER COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT WAS INEFFECTIVE?
XI.
WHETHER THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL, TRIAL COUNSEL AND THE CONVENING AUTHORITY?
XII.
WHETHER THERE WAS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION BETWEEN APPELLANT'S AND TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP?
XIII.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF?
XIV.
WHETHER THERE WAS IMPROPER CONDUCT BY THE TRIAL COUNSEL?
XV.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS VIOLATED? XVI.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL WAS VIOLATED? XVII.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONTING WITNESSES WAS VIOLATED? XVIII.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO PRESENT WITNESSES ON HIS BEHALF? XIX.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEAS? XX.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY PRESUMING THE APPELLANT WAS GUILTY WITHOUT PROPER PROOF?
XXI.
WHETHER IMPROPER EVIDENCE WAS ENTERED DURING SENTENCING?
XXII.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S RESTRICTION ON THE USS MUSTIN (DDG 89) WAS TANTAMOUNT TO CONFINEMENT? XXIII.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHT AMENDMENT WHILE CONFINED ON THE USS MUSTIN (DDG 89)? XXIV.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED?
XXV.
WHETHER THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S BEHAVIOR WAS UNETHICAL?
XXVI.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTED TO ILLEGAL PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT?
XXVII.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO BE HEARD BEFORE A MAGISTRATE UNDER RULE 5 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WAS VIOLATED?
XXVIII.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY WAS VIOLATED?
XXIX.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO AN INDICTMENT WAS VIOLATED?
XXX.
WHETHER THE COURT-MARTIAL HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT?
XXXI.
WHETHER THE COURT-MARTIAL HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSES AGAINST THE APPELLANT? XXXII.
WHETHER THE CONVENING AUTHORITY EXERCISED UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE OVER THE MILITARY JUDGE?
XXXIII.
WHETHER THE APPELLANT'S PRETRIAL AGREEMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?