whether-the-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-established-a-troubling-precedent-inconsistent-with-edwards-v-arizona-and-lego-v-twomey

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In failing to require the government to meet its heavy burden to show that defendant’s post—invocation waiver of his Miranda rights, including his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, was voluntary, did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals establish a troubling precedent that is clearly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s holdings in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) and Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972)? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ conclusion that HSI interrogators’ threats and promises were not improper establish a far—ranging and troubling precedent that is clearly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Hutton v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28 (1976)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to allow the unindicted personal—use methamphetamine found in defentant’s pocket to support a lesser—included verdict of simple possession of methamphetamine violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to an indictment, and establish a far—ranging and troubling precedent that is clearly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960)?