to investigate and the State’s intentional failure to disclose material concerning Abreu’s testimony in violation of Franqui’s rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and the constitution, later amended to include a claim under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony; (7) Franqui was denied his federal and Florida constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his postconviction remedies because of the rule prohibiting his lawyers from interviewing jurors to determine if constitutional error was present; (8) Franqui is being denied his rights to due process and equal protection, and cannot prepare an effe 28, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122
holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that sixth amendment requires that a jury not a judge find the existence of any aggravating circumstance and that they be found beyond a reasonable doubt holding that under the sixth amendment right to trial by jury aggravating factors that operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a charged offense must be found by a jury holding because arizonas enumerated aggravating factors operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense the sixth amendment requires that they be found by a jury