Opinion ID: 73550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 1. Whether the State’s failure to produce certain items of evidence violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2. Whether Wright received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to investigate another person’s arrest and indictment for the same crime; failed to challenge the State’s alleged use of peremptory challenges to strike all black members from the venire and failed to raise this issue on direct appeal; and failed to object to the admission of misleading information in Wright’s pre-sentence investigation report. 3. Whether Wright established a prima facie violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and whether Wright’s Batson claims are procedurally barred because counsel did not raise an objection at trial under Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965). 6 4. Whether the preclusion clause in Alabama’s former Death Penalty Act unconstitutionally prevented the instruction of a lesser included offense in this case. 5. Whether Wright is entitled to relief on the remaining claims presented to the district court.