Could a jurist of reason find that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in determining that admission of petitioner's in-custody statements in the absence of Miranda advisements did not deprive petitioner of due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Could a jurist of reason find that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in determining that admission of petitioner's in-custody statements in the absence of Miranda advisements did not deprive petitioner of due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Could a jurist of reason find that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in determining that the trial court's exclusion of evidence did not violate petitioner's right to present a defense under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Could a jurist of reason find that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in determining that prosecutorial misconduct in voir dire and closing argument did not violate petitioner's right to a fair trial and right to counsel under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Could a jurist of reason find that even if none of these errors were prejudicial in themselves, the cumulative effect of these error deprived petitioner of a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment? i LIST OF ALL PARTIES Petitioner MICHAEL MORAN. Respondent PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ii