Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends to the initial arraignment on the warrant

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Jomiah tlashington was arraigned at his initial appearance in front of a Detroit Magistrate Judge for first degree murder without counsel, At trial, the State relied on a thirdParty witness's coerced testimany that was manufactured by police under extreme torture and psychological tactics. In affirming the denial of his federal habeas petition, the Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that under : Michigan law, the assistance af counsel at the initial arraignment is not required. The court then avoided the question of whether the third-party witness! psychological coercion violated due Precess because the record did not support a factual basis of Coercion. The Questions presented are: 1. thether The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals erred and made a decision that conflicts with this Court's holding in Rothgery v Gillespie, 128 Sct 2578 (2008) by cancluding that under Michigan law, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to the initial arraignment on the warrant? 2. tthether Mr. Washington's due process rights were violated , when the State made use at trial of a pregnant witness's statement extracted by police through egregious torturetype-tactics and psychological coercion? And, Can the reviewing court on habeas review, rely on the existing trial court record as a factual basis to determine the Coercion? i DISCLOSURE. OF CORPORATE. STATEMENT nn ements en senna ot Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Petitioner makes the following disclosure: ; 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affilitate of a publicly-ouwned corporation? No, 2. Is there a publicly-owned Corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has financial interest in the outcome? No. Respectfully submitted, /s/Jomiah Washington#786873 Thumb Correctional Fac. 3225 John Conley Drive Lapeer, MI 48446 TABLEOF CONTENTS OPINIONS BELOW JURISDICTION CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED