I Desmond Juucon Woods, is asking the Court to consider giving me on the height to Amend my brief in order to bring errors to light that my Attorney Ebb B. Hobbry refuse to do so at my request. Ineffective Counsel, Prevechtorial Vendictiveness, Equal Protection Cause of Jury not of my peers, Boston v. Kmentucky, Stilling Black off jury, Ithand IIIth Amendment, California v. Florida motion to suppress confidence to due to illegal awards and boost and Hearny Confession, charge instruction, of the law of Boston Chellberges per- temptary Chasberge, etc.

The trial court abused its deseretion when it acts in a arbitrary or unresorable manner, or if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or pitincibles. Downer v. R. uamazione Operators Inc., 1013424232, 241 342 (Jus. 1985). A trial court electrificer to analyze or apply the law correctly constitutes an abuse of deseretion. See Walker v. Baecker, 82134242 833, 840 (Jus. 1989) (crig. proceedings); Carbon v. Moore, 2243423234440 445 (Jus App-balles 2007, nupot) Morris County Court under its pjernary power could be held hearing in, motion for nevitrial under matters such

*2 Jury misconduct and misconduct of the States witness Usulmology of Sevce v. Morris, 3523 Wad 941, 949 (Ser. 869) The trial court, regardless of whether an expood has been perfated has plenary power to grant a new trial or ute modily, carnet or reform the yudement within that by days after the pat judgement is signed. The courte knowlodge of the evadence isn't eumulatin and the evidence is so material it should'se been inedmissible in Court. The court known the evadence in a thewitral will produce a different result Due to the neglect of a fair trial under the Equal Protection Clause of Jury not of my peers Stikiy Black oft yury 6th and 14th Amendment, I the defendant, feel deeply that the court acted in thee plenary power and quickly gave me a court appointed lawyer without me askiy Morris (Bunty court for a lawyer, but I did ask for a Bond Rending Hypncal that was told ta me that ay lawyer would have to file for Moltina of Bond Rending Hypncal. Their wess many of wolded right to of the defendant Boston v. Kentucky, Stikiy Black oft Sury 6th and 14th Amendment, California v. Florida, motion to suppress evadence due to illegal swords and arrest and heavy confession, not recordedduring interogation, that would'se elearly proven his immense. In effective counsel on mytrial a tternay, error in given chooge instruction, chemical of Poster Challenge, Texemplory Challenge, Even with these type of eritial error my lawyer refused to apply for my Bond Rending Hypncal, telling me and my family that I have to pay him or pay a attorney to file for the motion of Bond I, Defendant, Real very strongly that because of upon onexboling the evidence eulog at trial that the legal system in Morris County, will videte my right again the my atbinary 266 B Mobley. The record will show that the Defendant, has filled Rose Motion for Bond as Paill Rending Hypnel, which by Sevay Rensl Code 141, 141, any Sentence under 10 years of improvement is entitled to a Bond. The Defendant

*3 it not altered to his community of merus County, also it's a non without abberse. These also is a Double-Tempestly issue of Calculation or abstraction of records and the States Deformating Statement of Cilipol and Shender of Waltens and Dea Communication to the Court and Turrs. 444413 of Cim. 12 3003 Underlying idea of both Double Tropendy and collateralestepel is that the state will all it's resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempt to ensure that an individual for an alleged abberse threaty subjecting him to embarrassment, emporise and ordeal and respecting him to live in a continue state of anxiety, and in security as well as entrancy containing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty, USCA Court Amendós Zuparte Jaffor 101243243412 emend and 468 11. Boston v. Kentucky

It is a variation of my Sixth Amendment right to an impartial yery and The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment Peenemptory Challenges to remove a potential error from the yung pool based on the victates, the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Equal Po- tection Clause guarantees to the Defendant that the State will not exclude remember of his race from the yung venire on account of race or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group, not a alifind to serve a yurors. Justice Shouford Marshall argued with the decision in the case, but asserted that the Court should etroote eliminate the use of Peenemptory Challenges in all criminal proceeding so that they could not be used as a font for impossible racial consideration, Justice Marshall asserted that under the current system, protectors are still free to diseriminate so long as it is not blastant, and trial courts force a difficult burden of assessing a proceder mishue. The rule of Restor v. United States, strong that we affirm today, maybe understood as avoiding that an individual may not be gltiratedly demand

*4 Privacy for activities conducted outdors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. The innestaging officer took pictures of objectimmediately, surrounding my house without probable cause on the date of Dec. 24,2013 and the Affidavit submitted for Probable Cause Determination was filed on 12-26-13 at 15:15pm. So at the time I enter the MISO at 1609pm I wasnit charged with any crime until 15:15pm. Why was pictures taken on 12-24-13 the probable cause affidavit was submitted on 12-26-13 and the statement on the probable cause states. That Weats met me at the MISO were to took me in to custody. Why because I came up to the MISO to talk to the police officers. He lied about the so-called statement, saying that the Defendant knew what did the crime and took the copper to the scorp yard. Chandard v. Washington, 2004 Violation of my 34th Amendment, Quit by thecray by the innestagating officers Hershal Stseman, and Robin Allen, Alice Bullock, Statement violated the Confrontation Cause. Her Statement "Robin Allen" said that the Defendant in someone was seven on Dec. 14, 2013 at the northwest side of the chicken house. Under Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S.S. by does not bar abdomission of unavailable witness's statement against a criminal defendant if the statement boars," adequate indica of reliability" a test met when the evidence either falls within a firmly rooted hearsay conception" or bears" yet partical orical guarantees of trust worthiness. The Defendant feels that she is involved and send the authorities to a directien. Robin Allen had been living there for several years, yet somehow they can't find her, which my lawyer Sexy Pratt Jr. stated. I asked my attorney Pratt, why is Mrs. Allen statement being used against me, if she can't be cross-examined. Mr. Pratt answered was that she wasn't able to be found. She DR. Shew known isvenused. Robin Allen Statement, in his cliving argument, I felt like her statement was used to try to place me in the chicken house or the time in which it heaped Robin Allen and Alice Bullock were working for six days before they called

*5 The MCSD Police ^[2] . Why? There are several cases of treason dated from the 18th and 19th centuries. One of important is, Most trial of Sir Walter Raleigh and Lord Morbeyl's Case, 6 Nov. 31, 1871, 110-111 (HL. 1666). In general the heresy rule is motivated by belief that heresy of Office, Herbal Stroma and Alice Bullock. They stated that a trial of institution was on the way to the Defendant house that was used by the DR Steven Conan. than out the trial, however, in reality they never had sufficient evidence. proving the trial even existed. No class of evidence is free of the possibility of fabrication, but the likely need is less with nonverbal than with assertive verbal conduct. Motivation the nature of the State withers conduct, and presence, in absence of reliance will bear heavily upon the weight to be given the evidence. Fathace, The Heresy Rule as a "See-Do Rule" Evidence of Conduct, 33 Rocky, NY, 3, Rev. 133 (1961). The ambiguous, and doubtful of the admissibility of evidence, the declar mation involves no greater difficulty than wrong other preliminary question of fact. Require, The Heresy System, ^[2] Around and Strength the Shicket, 14 Vand. 3, Rev. 141, 165-167 (1961). The Defendant afteray, Jerry. Irself exposed the States, ustens serval time under oath in misconduct of statement given in these testimony. There have been other errors that I've found and more still to allect in my transfer. Trants v. Delaware. In a nation to suppress on the 14th Amendment were the officer false statement knowingly, and intentionally, or reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the effort in a warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly, faste statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause the 14th Amendment, as inexcponded in the 14th Amendment require that a hearing be held, called Frants, Heorings. My lawyer should be ask for a hearing because of the Affidavit of Probable Cause, was so weak, because of the unrecorded and false statement given by Officer Stroman, to obtain the warrant. Probable Cause was lacking on the

*6 Lop4 face of the Aflidavit of Arrest. There was also illegal search which lead to picture taken that should not been used in the trial at all. The warrant that was issued was issued after the fact that the Defendant was already, illegally, arrested, and the officer told the magistrate about a false recorded Statement of the Defendant admitting to the arime. This is enough evidence to show a violation of the $4^{\text{th}}$ and ${14}^{\text{th}}$ Amendment. The magistrate is who must determine independently whether the is probable cause. Johnson v. United States 333 US 10, 13-14 (1948) Jones v. United States 362 US, 251, 270-271 (1966) it would be an unthinkable imposition upon his authority, if a warrant affliction revealed after the fact to contain a deliberately or recklessly false statement were to stand beyond impprochment. See Stone v. Pavel 408, Us. 445 (971). Respondent argue that applying the conclusionary rule to another situation, the deterrence of, deliberate or reckless, untudeliberes in a warrant affibidavit is not justified for many of the same reasons, that led to the above restriction; interbing with a criminal conviction in order to deter of ficial misconduct is, aburden too great to impose on society. Applying the conclusionary rule to attack upon varacity, would useed out a minimal number of, perjuries, but would overlap to meessarily with existing penalties against parpury, including criminal protection, departmental discipline for misconduct, and civil action. The inesumental gain from a post- Search adverbs, preceding it is said would not be good. Denigration of the magistrate's function would be imprudent inso far as his serating is a last bulwark preventing any particular invasion of, priacy before it happen or false statement. Permiting a post search evidentiary hearies, on issue of, veracity would confuse the pressing issue of, guilt or innocence with the collateral agustiones, to whether there had been of ficial misconduct in the drafting of the affidavit. The post- search veracity challenge is, in appropriate because the accuracy of an affidavit in large part is beyond the control of the affiant. An affidavit may, properly, be based on hear-say on the sting observations. A has boun on

*7 Impeachment of, ie railly, could denude the probable cause requirements of all real meaning. The requirement that warrant not issue would be reduced to a nullity, if sapplice officer was able to use deliberately falsified allegation to demonstrate probable cause, and having mislead the magistrate. It is the, specter of intentional falsification that, has involved such widespread opposition to the Postreparch rule from the commentators, from the American Socialist in its Model Cute of the Brisingment Procedure 55 (F10.30) (Prop. off. Daft 1975) Con instance of deliberate falsity will be exposed and confirmed without a special inquiry, either at trial, See United States wvel. Part. No v. Prev. Jersey, 400 F. Sept. 153, 1171-1172 (N11975), vacated and commanded by order 200 nom Albones v. Henger, 541 F. 24315 (6431976), or at a hearing on the sufficiently of the affidauit of United States v. Up2kay, 448 F. 241218, 1321-1349 F. 436 us 541, 1697 (east 1971). A Post nonimpeach ment rule would beer forcomination of the warrant, when in these cases, By all that has been said all the content is in sufficient, the defendant is sentitted, under the $4^{\text{th}}$ and ${14}^{\text{th}}$ Amendment to his hearing. Impeaching the Credibility of Affidauits of Probable Cause possibility of Police Ployury, 1971 U. III. The Constitutional Regist to Challenge the Content of Probable Cause Warrant Issued Under the $4^{\text{th}}$ Amendment, 24 Ohio St. L3, 2971, 304, 308, 340 (1973) See Ha, The Exclusionary Rule and Police Ployury, 11 San Diego L. Rev. 839 819 (1974); Harmon, Warrant, the Hered of Seceath: Improaching the Allegation of Facially Sufficient Affidauit, 310 Ohio St. 325 124, 138-139, 150 (1975); Note, 1512189, 111-112 (1964); Note, 1512189, 111-112, 1530-1531 (1967); Comment, 11 ucl. 2, Rev. 76, 108, 186 (1971); Comment, 1233, Crim 21, CFP3, 41, 48, 50 (1973); Note, 33 Drate 2, Rev. 693, 638-639 (1974); Comment, 130 on Ha 103, Rev. 839 859-860 (1976). Since the oblicer never obtained a search warrant, the privacy interest protected by the $4^{\text{th}}$ and ${14}^{\text{th}}$ Amendment has been breached, a subsequent determation that it was wrongfully breached cannot possibly restore the privacy interest. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974). Since the

*8

Copy

sevidence obtained pursuant to the search is by hypothesis of falsified testimony on the part of a fellent is in violation of his right and made a different in the outcome of the decision. See United States v. Dettier, 429 us. 531 (1975) The only cone sivable town done by such evidence is to the accusat's rights under the South and Southeerth Amendment.

Praxyon

I Desmond Woods pray that the Court of Appal find the Deforetant not guilty and render a reverse on both dnurrutrars and issue a statement of a gquittal.

*9