Whether Boukin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), is a Constitutional Rule of Court, mandated on the District Court or merely the exercise of its supervisory authority to require Evidence in the absence of Congressional direction

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED “These questions suggest to this Court, its Interpretation && abuse OF the weer doctrine shuuld not be eontined to Habors Corpus proteduncs void on tts Yoos oF @ Constitutional Rule oF oust. \. Whether Boukin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. ASS (iE, iS A Constikstional Rule of oust, merdeted on iS. District Couch or merely the twereise oF its supervisory @cthectdy Yo ¢ equiete Evidence tn Yhe absence ox Congressional dicethion’? | a). Whether peition is pretedurally bearted AS @ SutesssiE | hebeas. Corpus petivien, * original hebers torpins ptmeese was absense of the Consiitultenel cequirement mendsted in Brifin wv Wlabama, 345 WS. 228 (iad, to mai 3). Whether & Yothiel habers dorpas pecedure thet usas vor on its Sece OF ts Consttuttenal cequiremertt . unier Bolan v. Nabama soas Woleltwe Sk the LS. Qonatthition SY Rinendment duc protess clause 2 (i) 4) Whether Congttock ona lly requited evidence UnetProves petitioner WAS Ceoviebed wheat prot béiend a teasoneble doubt; selishes substantial Showing b& the denial OF @& Condituttonel Baht 2 5), Whelher a habeas torpas Procedure thet is Vow. pon te Kener S & Conditional requicemert considered a Plata fever onder Fed. 0.dom. PR 5b) 7 Q. Whether a carta: GF appeatebility should Tosus, idhan She United Slates Dette doar’ Yeted to upheld the U.d.loriiakon while protessing & Brignel halbers cachas pekitien: (ii)