Whether defendant's incriminating statements and body language should be excluded as custodial interrogation without Miranda advisement

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Under the Fifth Amendment/Miranda Right's; The Sixth Amendment And Due Process Clause of the Fourtheenth Amendment as Applied to AEDPA Habeas Corpus. 28 U.S.C.§2254 I. WHETHER UNDER MIRANDA MUST A DEFENDANT'S INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS AND BODY LANGUAGE BE EXCLUDED AS CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION WITHOUT ADVISEMENT OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS" WHERE A SUSPECT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO A POLICE STATION IN A . PATROL CAR, PLACED IN A ROOM WITHOUT HANDCUFFS BY A DETECTIVE, TOLD HE IS FREE TO LEAVE. ? II. WHETHER ALLEGED NON-CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS AT A POLICE . STATION OR AT WHAT POINT THE INTERROGATIONS BECOME . ‘ CUSTODIAL .AND INADMISIBLE IN LIGHT OF MIRANDA. ? . ' IIL. WHETHER, CONFUSING, CONFLICTING AND MISLEADING INSTRUCTIONS . THAT INFORMS THE JURY THE REQUIRED PROOF OF UNION OR JOINT ‘ . OPERATION OF ACT CONCERNING CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR, REQUIRE REVERSAL BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHICH CONFLICTING INSTRUCTIONS THE JURY FOLLOWED.? Iv. WHETHER OR WHAT DEGREE OF "EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A DEFENDANT HAS INFLICTED BODILY HARM RESULTING FROM THE USE OF FORCE MORE THAN THE FORCE NECESSARY TO COMMIT . ’ SPECIFIED SEXUAL OFFENSES. ? Vv. WHETHER THE STATE.COURTS DECISION WAS AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW. ? ; : VI. WHETHER UNDER THE AEDPA STANDARD PETITIONER HAD MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION NECESSARY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (COA).? “ -i Dette