Whether the admission of an involuntary confession derived from an illegal interrogation violates the accused's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Omen @rose! counse\Pen eonew askes -his Cour +o venir Evidence Code SeoFiend\142ao-\ Whee Ae \owel Soult Misa PAoPatecd OU ~ QCCauv + Shatemente 4nd Nar On Cait Swo/f Yssessuaa Qrotaartive Valuerbudt BNE. inacknissilal e 10 NAW, and cleaMlViolates ne COvistituttovial Miaht CC Ane xccusect. (2) Pel Honer @tuest YesPeckQully weve an agentot tue Wosecukion intewvosate d ai\ieaedl Co defenclant white “incuistedN” to Make an indoluntam Aontession wmPlemen diaa Veliioner in fro sé when We neeWvev were in custody ask kno Kwe de Sete met! wus Iwven. Nor was hea Person Of intevesk Ao Vone ot He OCenger We vows found Obes ‘eautteed mM aviola tion octane UnitecMades Constitution 5 oo Ab ends hey? Wwolding adurssion of involunavy cov\hession doWived ne fe se Petitioner clu +2 entsinma Dovsliluda onal UVor NW nae of bis SoauAmendwert i Rian 26 (oss skamine YOUN DLCLECS veiricl AHirdmencinen at Due Mocess Poople Vi Baclgett C1995) 40 fal. 4th 330, a4 S48) fro se! Petitioner war obeprive Manel sag fo bha Wen5t fre Yalan tot ness of cofdelendan hs Seatement, For dive “haat Te Roa this Loutt C3) Pro se'fetitioner Directs this i owl y feloasider The we jnpbavativ& Cages enteiled throug ‘ fe\i\ao revs Comkention +a Hue lowd/ Cuts Yorkins OfeVGhioys(Rule @ -seoCo UD) able vi Grimes (go1e) + O21. 1 6%, and Will? amson VL.3», 542 U.8.694 (1994) het ioner DSK tnis Court to Yuvoughly analice yne Above tases mention Widov Poviated wits PeltHovevs Case do delewmine ic Ane Whevewt Untellable Shake wets Used to Sustain an Qonviction whert Doll due Praduct of Pubsunhaily miter al Lyidence. De Le low +t wll Conclude Notting else. Vellouol A Veabnable. could: < Vraticlates Reattoner® congnctiomasees of Meecror Sincerely py pis mater