Whether the totality of the law enforcement officers' words or actions made during the questioning of Petitioner in this case when they told Petitioner he could not leave the hospital amounted to custodial interrogation control over the Petitioner for Miranda purposes?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), this Court announced a prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That rule generally prohibits prosecutors and criminal trial courts from admitting into evidence against a criminal defendant any self-incriminating statement made by that defendant while he was in custody, unless the defendant first received certain warnings spelled out in Miranda. The question before this Court is: Whether the totality of the law enforcement officers' words or actions made during the questioning of Petitioner in this case when they told Petitioner he could not leave the hospital amounted to custodial interrogation control over the Petitioner for Miranda purposes? ° DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The undersigned counsel for Petitioner furnishes the following list in compliance with S. Ct. Rules 14 and 33.1: 1. The full name of every party that attorney represents in this case: Zohn Wang Kub Yang 2. The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case or are expected to appear for the party in this court: None at this time 3. Any parent corporation and any publicly held company that own 10% or more of stocks of shares. ; By: s/Zohn Wang Kub Yang___ 1006 County Road EE P.O. Box 0925 Redgranite, Wisconsin 54970-0925 ’ (920) 566-2600 . Petitioner, Pro se ii