1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
3. ARGUMENT
4. I.THE PROSECUTION HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY WITHHELD INFORMATION FROM THE DEFENDANT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OF MATERIAL BENEFIT TO HIS DEFENSE.
5. II.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUASHING DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENAS AND DENYING HIM ACCESS TO THE RECORDS OF THE NC VICTIMS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM
6. III.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT SEALING MATERIAL FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
7. IV.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE ACTUAL RECORDINGS OF INTERVIEWS WITH THE INVESTIGATION CHILDREN
8. V.THE SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY MATERIAL BY THE PROSECUTION DENIED DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
9. VI.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS OF THE PROSECUTING WITNESSES
10. VII.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING SEVERAL STATE'S WITNESSES TO TESTIFY THAT THEY DIAGNOSED THE CHILDREN AS HAVING BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED
11. VIII.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING OPINION TESTIMONY FROM SEVERAL LAY WITNESSES
12. IX.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING DEFENDANT'S FORMER ATTORNEY TESTIFY AGAINST HIM AND IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF THIS ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
13. X.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY OF KELLI DE SANTE
14. XI.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISQUALIFYING JURORS FOR CAUSE WHO WOULD TEND TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO AN ADULT'S TESTIMONY THAN TO A CHILD'S
15. XII.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCUSING JURORS FOR CAUSE ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGEDLY POOR READING ABILITY
16. XIII.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT INTERVENING EX MERO MOTU TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM MAKING SEVERAL GROSSLY IMPROPER ARGUMENTS
17. XIV.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUBMITTING THREE CASES TO THE JURY THAT WERE DISMISSED AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE'S EVIDENCE
18. XV.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT INSTRUCTING THE JURORS ON THEIR DUTY
19. XVI.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF AND MOTION TO RECUSE
20. XVII.THE STATE'S RELIANCE ON INADMISSIBLE AND UNRELIABLE HEARSAY DENIED THE DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PRESENT A DEFENSE AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
21. XVIII.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE GAVE RISE TO NO MORE THAN A SUSPICION OF DEFENDANT'S GUILT
22. XIX.THE SENTENCES IN THIS CASE DENY THE DEFENDANT'S STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS
23. XX.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING JUDGMENTS FOR MULTIPLE CRIMES FOR EACH ALLEGED ACT BY THE DEFENDANT
24. CONCLUSION
25. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
26. QUESTIONS PRESENTED