Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present to the court during suppression hearing evidence that the petitioner seeks to raise when invoking his 5th Amendment right to remain silent

estioN(s) Presente> GG) Werte CouNnseLWis INEFFECTIVE Wend FAxLtdé ro Present To THE Cougx Duesig SuePiwesszon Hera 6, THAN THe PEVETIONGR TEKS Mamanba NATAEIG WATNGR WHEN 2NVoeING HAS FEETH Ama IMeNT ZaGUT -ro Zeman Ssicnt? (A wWeterez Counsel wis INGREECTING WHer FAtLs06 TO Call MEANP MRS, Graven Srerd AS A VIABLE bere nks Wes ne<ses) al SurpPee< OF Wietro) =) LEmiIne Ab aN OPPUSIT LON ~D PREAMEDIZKTED MUR pEeR Durave eas’ (\WHerHec Counsel WAS HEFECAIVE WHEN FATLING To Demand PHYSTCHL EVEDENLE DE Pedr OF PHONE Lecoeas FLOM THE STATE, USED DuRanG PaS-Teszal Ano Aaa © TO BST Agta A TEVOLAIJE AND deen -70 comma WUCPEL, INSTEAD | STZPULAT ENG TO THE PUNS VECoRP INK TAGATIOD). nA | Michael Robert Everett v. Secretary ry, D.O.C., et al., Case No. 19-10472 | CERTIFICATE OFINTERESTEDPERSONS . AND