presentedquestion (s)IV.this Honorable
from theand/or petition sCastillon wishesPetitioner Pedro Medina
review this Stateand in distinguishing
and/or Law presents orclaim for purpose
Court to
o£ter, equally difficult inquiry
"arising under the Lawsin whether this case
and theof the United States
as a case
whether Federal and State' 'lease;" ' far: pendent
. Const,art 3,§ 2.qualifies
issueclaims constitute:one
often appear together
Jurisdiction of State Law
Federal claim must have substance. U.S.C.A
and mayclaims under pendent
sufficient toJurisdiction purposes
Federal Court to retainFor a
Jurisdiction doctrine,the
the Court; Jurisdiction oninvolve Penal Code-
and theconfer subject matter
The relevant
192(a) ) that '■ are-: inand countless others thatfacts of this caseof the Lower Court'swith the decisionsconflictthat can only beNational Importance
the United States,to _
decisions of State Lawthat have risen to
Court ofAppellate Court s decide the question(s)
should be avoided brought to this Supreme
involved once and for all; Needless the parties byJustice between
stablished applicable Law.of comity and to promote
footed reading of e
latitude to decide on questionboth as a matter
procuring
Recognition of a
Law.of state for them a surer
Federal Court'swide
limited by doctrine
of pendent.Jurisdiction;
bodies for application of pre-of State claim waswhether permissible scope
The questionfor exerciseemption afforded a special reason
particulary appropriateof pre-
Federal Court s are
be viewed as poorly,defined and highly
relatively brief history rs colored by
well Known confusion insruction.that is theemption principles.
"Heat-of-Passion" is and can
Judicial expansion; itsThe
susceptible to
the case of misleading and/or the
" that needs betterresulting' 'conviction
The pleading and arguments
which did not focus jurysits true attention uponcould be kept within its
the special proofwithin which concept
of State Law that meetsadequately define the compass
towards proper applicationlimits
requirements .
Such as -
treating divergent legal* s confusion inand/or the likelihood of the jury
theories of relief .the considerations

throughout the litigation;
substantial hegemony of
confusion which could not havewhich remains openIt is properly assumed as one
the trial may reveal aPretrial procedures or even
claims that has its expected jury
Pule 42(b), 28 U.S.C.A.State Law
been anticipated (Fed,Rules
. Kozee-Stoltz et al. ,D069073-Instructional errorPeople v
The Court of Appeal found the instructional error
rejected the improper legal theory m its
. Merritt when it was
could not determine that the jury
the charges- People vfindings of guilt
Opinion by Miller with McKinster.
Trial Court committed reversibleon
J King J.
when it failed to instruct on theerror
error
. Cummings(1993) 4 Cal 4th 1223

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