Should this Court summarily reverse the Ninth Circuit for failing to address petitioner's preserved claim that his conviction was premised on a confession coerced by police tactics that are inherently coercive?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner was convicted of committing a triple homicide as a teenager and condemned to spend the rest of his life in prison based on false incriminating statements. Nearly all the other testimonial and forensic evidence exonerated him—including the blood and hair of other, unidentified males at the crime scene. He gave his false statements to undercover police officers who were posing as violent mobsters. He did so because he believed if he refused to “confess” to the murders he did not commit, he would be killed. Even so, the state trial court denied petitioner’s motion to suppress his statements. The trial court (1) found he did not confess because of credible threats of violence, and (2) held that the police tactics were not inherently coercive. The state court of appeals failed to address the second claim. And the Ninth Circuit simply overlooked it. Thus, no court has ever seriously considered petitioner’s claim that the undercover operation was per se coercive. There is obvious merit to the claim under clearly established federal law, and _ profound consequences for petitioner, who might otherwise spend the rest of his life in prison for crimes he didn’t commit. Given the persistence of wrongful convictions based on false confessions, it is vital for courts to ensure that a defendant’s “confession” was not obtained by inherently coercive official misconduct if the confession is to be used to convict him. The question presented is: Should this Court summarily reverse the Ninth Circuit for failing to address petitioner’s preserved claim that his conviction was premised on a _ confession coerced by police tactics that are inherently coercive?