Whether the federal court had proper pendent jurisdiction over state law claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED S-. . IV. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Petitioner Pedro Medina Castillon wishes and/or petition’s this Honorable Court to review this State claim for purpose and in distinguishing from the often equally difficult inquiry in whether this case and/or Law presents or qualifies as a case “arising under the Laws of the United States" and the , issue whether Federal and State claims constitateone Uease” “for; perident Jurisdiction purposes and may often appear together. U.S.C.A. Const, art 3,22. For a Federal Court to retain Jurisdiction of State Law claims under pendent Jurisdiction doctrine, the Federal claim must have substance sufficient to ; confer subject matter Jurisdiction on the Court; ‘The relevant facts of this case and countless others that involve Penal Code192(a)) that .areein conflict with the decisions of the Lower Court's and the Appellate Court's that have risen to National Importance that can only be brought to this Supreme Court of the United States, to decide the question(s) : involved once and for all; Needless decisions of State Law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote Justice between the parties by ; procuring for them a surer footed reading of established applicable Law. Recognition of a Federal Court's wide latitude to decide on questions of state : Law. The question whether permissible scope of State claim was limited by doctrine of pre-emption afforded a special reason for exercise of pendent , Jurisdiction; Federal Court's are particulary appropriate bodies for application of preemption principles. ) : The "Heat-of-Passion" is and can be viewed as poorly ,defined and highly : susceptible to Judicial expansion; Its relatively brief history is colored by _ the case of misleading and/or the well known confusion insruction,that is the : that needs better framing of Law. ; The pleading and arguments of counsel to jury ,and instructions . which did not focus jurys attention upon its true attended Law and in not adequately define the compass within which concept could be kept within its limits towards proper application of State Law that meets the special proof requirements. Such as the considerations and/or the Likelihood of the jury's confusion in treating divergent legal theories of relief. qe It is properly assumed as one which remains open throughout the Litigation; Pretrial procedures or even the trial may reveal a substantial hegemony of State Law claims that has its expected jury confusion which could not have been anticipated (Fed,Rules Rule 42(b) ,28 U.S.C.A; People v. Kozee-Stoltz et al. error The Court of Appeal found the instructional error was prejudicial when it could not determine that the jury rejected the improper legal theory in its findings of guilt on the chargesPeople v. Merritt Opinion by Miller with McKinster.J King J. ; Trial Court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct on the . charged offenses-Following People vCummings (1993) 4 Cal 4th 1223,1311-1312, Court of Appeal rejected the Attorney General's argument, the instructional : omission was subject to harmless error analysis, because the error withdrew from the jury's consideration substantially all the elements of the offense, , the error was reversible. . This Court can decide whether this part of the definition of the "Heat-Of-~~ Passion survives the constitution's Prohibitition of vague criminal Laws and/or perhaps its not the criminal Law, But rather the trial Court assessing the "potential risk" in imagining how the case of the crime subsequently plays ~ ; out... Which would,and can fall on the speculative elements and quickly detaching from the statutory elements. ; In all the confusion just add in the trial Judge's grave and uncertain estimation of risk possed by the crime on how and/or which instruction will and will not tip the scales in removing the statutory element of Penal Code 192(a* That is one of our biggest problems with specific Laws that involve particular