Whether the 5th Amendment (right to be free from self-incrimination) and 6th (denial of assistance of counsel) and 14th amendments were violated

QUESTION PRESENTED Should CERTIORARI be granted to review two unreasonable and unconstitutional decisions of the state court: 1) Whether the 5" Amendment (right to be free from self-incrimination) and 6" (denial of assistance of counsel) and 14" amendments were violated by the trial judge allowing the prosecutor to seize 18 pages of letters written by petitioner to his attorney and then allowed the prosecutor to question petitioner, in front of the jury, on the contents of his communications to his attorney;In this non-certified issue, the prosecution read to the jury from the attorney-client letters confidential communications between the two, attorney and client, and used the letters to get petitioner to admit he was not completely truthful (lied!) to that attorney and his own mother based on those confidential communications. The California Court of Appeal (CCA) factually, erroneously stated that was allowable since the petitioner was reading those letters on the stand. The trial judge clearly concluded that, NO, petitioner was not reading the letters on the stand. . Since the CCA unreasonably determined this erroneous statement from the evidence before the court, 2254(d)(2), the bar to the issuance of a habeas corpus petition was lifted and the petition should have granted on that issue alone. ii 2) Whether the appellate court of California, ignored its own Attorney General’s concession of Constitutional error that the jury was never told that AMBIEN was a controlled substance. The coup de grace to petitioner’s right to jury trial was the CCA ignoring the state concession of error, and, on its own motion, without any regard whatsoever to the state appellate briefing, bypassing the trial jury entirely, and taking judicial notice of an element necessary to add five years to the sentence, namely, that Ambien contained a controlled substance.