Whether the use of a coerced confession as substantive evidence at trial violates due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

No question identified. : es a PetrTiow FoR Wkrt of CERTLOR ART [chs wont Will be iv Ad a the Courts appellate — | @ CKxele:(Se ‘4 : Coupt ‘sche hiawar 4) €0 _ t T ‘Ze LORI be obfawed ee — law other Lorn or Lerm fram Bae, other CouvT = Lourschant to 9B uUsS.C. 3 (Esl (qa). 3824) oh — aa De , . | [a otitionrel _A le ate Petvbow % leave Gg,204/So. To rade 2 Re-sterl in order to Brno : | rst time ¢ « [Ke Lieto : OLD if for Certoran ot be barred dim Suck RegiesTe~ fe Ae ean : d r4 medi = | en ne the muah yy at Sc oD shen when = : his deflewhow unde he Coustitechone C 2a i Lhe Mided S ese ee | an Liloab le Ave ‘6 PRC "hy auec Aas bees [. bute fo the Prose idigaxt dhe cS paeldors la. LAbleaLalal O the Ch bs : A AC Air Petitrucer C. Shows | the 4 ve ee . ; NO Va 20 "Ke 4 Db Ars. OL ie x03 Mes CTF PED, £4 a4 L. A Aa ame op pdrtusty fa fe-operw A'S Case — Mate | ; an pe Car ear, Q Cs oxy Old thy rhat Ax : ete te O rz Z ; Cn SHES ‘eee eA 4 ce -_ wdhethe ei be tat! ‘Ss hanene¢ 4 he a) Ax ~ Lecem Puerse Land Pretediee” OL by the Sletutary duty — | 2 genre ¢ fey 0B KSC. QE ZA Ae creterests o£ fFaardamental Fraeviwess Reguscres hal ae_ececeplae be made te the Procedural Bar ot. S-judsteata gn sla tver Rule fhe Re lace sLheag CoscSrderis Pet fussc her dock ak Certeorat¢ belie lk _ Pe t, Pen, Ce ia) a Pre se Keb bener Cozcuy: fa) . War Ae did Avot commebt . And fac the Aldermati ds Cuclecre fo Conmscder sech Clasaas passe a Ler the frrsr ome a cto ertiotar:, sould fesalt cae : i a te / fe -~USs ter LAS | Like the Great We trom wheel tt drauls ots essence [sec Exgle -sLsaac “OS U.S, (02 -126 (982 )e 2 || oe