HEARING BEFORE THE JURY AND BEFORE THE JUDGE WERE IMPROPER AND VIOLATED RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF ALABAMA
"VIII. THE COURT'S FAILURE TO GIVE A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WHERE THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED SUCH A VERDICT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF ALABAMA
"IX. THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY VIOLATED PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
"X. THE COURT IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT IT'S VERDICT AT THE PENALTY STAGE WAS MERELY ADVISORY, THEREBY DENYING MICHAEL THOMPSON A FAIR TRIAL, DUE PROCESS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
"....
"XV. THE ALABAMA DEATH PENALTY STATUTE'S `ESPECIALLY HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS AND CRUEL' AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE ON ITS FACE, AS INTERPRETED BY ALABAMA COURTS AND AS APPLIED TO MICHAEL THOMPSON
"XVI. CERTAIN OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ALABAMA DEATH PENALTY SCHEME, AS INTERPRETED BY ALABAMA COURTS, VIOLATE THE UNITED STATES AND ALABAMA CONSTITUTIONS"
[3] These claims, as they appear in appellant's brief, include:
"XIII. THE PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY GENERATED PREJUDICED THE COMMUNITY AND THUS THE JURY AGAINST MICHAEL THOMPSON. THEREFORE, THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO CHANGE VENUE, ALLOW INDIVIDUALIZED VOIR DIRE OR EXCLUDE JURORS WHO HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO SUCH PUBLICITY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPROPER
"A. The pretrial publicity generated by the alleged crime mandated a change of venue.
"B. The trial court improperly refused to allow Michael Thompson's counsel to conduct individualized voir dire of the jury panel regarding their exposure to prejudicial material.
"C. The trial court's refusal to dismiss those prospective jurors who had indicated that they had been exposed to pretrial publicity was improper and a violation of Michael Thompson's right to a fair trial.
"....
"XVII. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL, SEQUESTERED VOIR DIRE OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY
"XVIII. THE TRIAL COURT'S EXCUSAL OF CERTAIN PROSPECTIVE JURORS WAS IMPROPER AND VIOLATED MICHAEL THOMPSON'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL"
[4] These claims, as they appear in appellant's brief, include:
"V. PETITIONER'S CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO DISCLOSE TO THE PETITIONER EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER
"....
"D. The prosecution's failure to disclose Michael Thompson's refusal to waive his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights creates a reasonable doubt as to Michael Thompson's guilt or sentence;
"....
"XI. THE COURT IMPROPERLY CONSIDERED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AT THE PENALTY STAGE IN VIOLATION OF MICHAEL THOMPSON'S RIGHTS [to the extent he argues that the trial court considered statements other than in the pre-sentence report regarding other crimes committed by the defendant]"
[*] At the evidentiary hearing, in the testimony of Richard Jaffe, Thompson elicited Jaffe's opinion on actions and omissions by trial counsel which were not raised in the Rule 20 petition. Jaffe's testimony included references to trial counsel's non-objection to advising the jury