Questions Presented

No question identified. : Queskions Ve esented \_ \Waghana 5 peconal sdeaink peditin hon sasten fowes _ -Cowwicrion ceedings Who Ane loucden & pcoa? a boty © Sed +o Nhe. Setidioned oN ise.) Be Rom a Stondacd a 5 exOC-An actual and substantia | P@iadice, \q Admion, indigent petitions ae denied ageciatmont of course) ns. dinvestiqative Lunds and devices ontille ciel A mines Ahork She issves Gised wm Aho Pebivon (2.00% “Seiveloos” (RCW. 19.73.1500)5 Mepodi Ee 5). ___Monreres she Cour of Agteals also @aits Perivionecs to Nemonsivake. thal Merc clams ae not fivolos wit Pcompatent, admissible evidence” Anak ie often impossible _ “wele of cooasel, invesbigatots, expechs and foc he Powem ko 4 oOMA UhMMe ses and pbotaia_discovesy ( n_ Rice). Doesttais wordy iasuctountalle exideatiany fooler depeine indiqens pelihione ls of Alnor SAwendmrt _ Cr AOD cals So dve process o& \awandloc YC Wi Avwendnens calats. lo due. process oC las an¥ val — Prorecsion of Ye las under the 0.5 Constibobion? _ Z. NoVne. evidenbiaty equitemwts imposed ba lone Rice a Niolake. Wag poh geen guns eek ce ee ) Qucsions Hesented, coniaved 5. Gon dw. extonesos denial of an indigent defendant's @-AV\a\ SA exper Myciadtic. Sexvices onder Ake v, 10k! noma dowage, Hy Constitutional Smmesck oa Mita \Arial\ +o BOK Mn RAN exter as +o qualita r\ve CL ( . AS aroctoml? ___ A Coo Soe, exvoteors denial Dan indigent Aefenkan’s _lBkiahoma, give. tise too cracigie pesumghione 5. Did MWe Ake, exo in Pokionet's case deny Vetitionec _ n> 0 Wik tn: due pracess of law ondeCMne. Sandfoc \H** _ _ cameos of Ye V5, Constrrodion, equal erorection the _ \ au oder Se un Awendurents, and | ot -tongulseny a Paces aadfac/asnssrance o& counsel vader the QR | Awendwaonrs? _ a Dees te Secision sf the Wasbinglon Cooth at Appeals ismissing Pelionets PRE as Vavoloos conClick with dhe, MeWi\ans y. Dana, od [5c tre 0.9, Coot of Appeals ASIONS \A_McWiliams v. Comm! rams ve Comm! and for Seidel y. _ Merkle andlor McShane vilabe? SC” | yeStions Vresented , Conkinued AIM. \e 0 A? dismissed Ped ono 6 Pee os, Rvolous Nea ok o Acking an eviidesbiacy Wearing? RA. Did the trial Coot cbse its dicetion ulkea denied Verikionoc's oti on Ser a continsance ty dong oxoeCL 9 ological services whic, Wue_ortical to _ Mis de e 65 ecovided a Ave v OK lao. ond . 4 A deLense Coun sel condec welrcdive Assistance tho lelitionac tou neglecting to wvestignke Wis meakal _ la pCiom bo Arial despite, Ising anna fig jagneses , Asiling +o drhaiA at ever opinion ia , uppat o& bec petested stateay of diminished capacity ming, to Laclode Supporting evidence. she rad in Wer _ SSiOn WA WC motion Sam a conbinvalce co Wi | —_Ja._expech citing inarposite. Case law ia that mation, oC Sailing AY of tw extaat mental Neatly talidence. “to We Vu ia Supa of \aec delease. © general deaial Ase to Lack othe intent to kit?