Whether the California trial court deprived Carter of his 5th and 14th Amendment rights by permitting the prosecution to impermissibly use his post-Miranda silence against him, violating Doyle v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona

No question identified. : : \SSUES PRESENTED \. WRAETHER THE CALFORNIA TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED CARTER OF WHS 5, L™ OR \U™ AMUDMERTS OCRMNTTING THE | , PROSECUTION TO (MPREMISIEA USE KAS POST” MIKANDA SILENCE AGAINST , HIM). Thos. VIOLATING OoY/e v. Ohio (ate) 426 OS. IO. AUD Mirende v. Arizone (14 bb) SB OS. HSE, HES Yo. 34 7 TOPICAL WWOEK Ragets) (SWOES PREWWTED tt VTATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 8 8 2. \, Slake Coov' Teral Proceedings 2 a, | 8, Soke RoskConnichion and week Kopeal , Proceedngs tt a | 7 | | STATEMENT OF FACTS 0 8 8 LL su set OPINIONS BELOW. == = =) == ts, SURISDICTION ee DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY US. MING is, . ARGUMENT 2 2 2 2 2 ee Ee | | = 8:9, 10002, . 1. _-CRRTIORAR) SAOLOD RE GRANTED BECAY SE CARTER WAS DEPRIED OF WAS STL ALO (UM AMIEROMENTS WEN TAR TRIAL COURT PERKITTED THE PROSECUTION TO (MPERMUSIBLY USE WAS QOSTRRREST GUENCE AGNUST Wr . . FOLLOWING Mir2zndz \WWNOCATION. = a Ft, WAND, CONCWSION 8 2 8 Le ete