Was defendant's plea bargain destroyed by coercive conduct of prosecutor

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ~ . 1. WAS DEFEND AST BALSODICE BL CHOKES DeTiCr@oyvy PEALORUARCE OF OFLEANWIo NO LONE — QUTAE DIRECT COOSEQODENCES OF ACCEDTOS LO OR AC ASECTIDLG THIS PLEA SFFER BST OHA RELAY Io TOS DEFENBAST STW S TRE STATE WAS GEREAED NOs Kh DLZA DEN OF SONECARS WT | a NOD HALE TO TAKE THT BO NERKS AAT HON OB | GO FOMABAD LOM THE TAL TABMY" 2 2. DAD DELESKAST DRQWIDE AD (ODEHENBEST QRCTIVE COOFIARATIGN THAT YS A BEASOMALLEL PROBARLTY) WEL LESSLD HALL ACCEPTED TRE SITE DOU LRA OFFER, . DESPITE VT SOY Bl A PONE PRA GIVER WR ard WUD COOSSUL TS PORSOT WASAOAPLEA BRL MAWo OD Bi2/ lo CAA Pood PAGH TS PLLA GINTA GS LSS)’ 3. WAV A Sopsec#rrokt, SELLSERNWLo STATEMENT YL . EeLEODAAT US AShedte WIS COSSL TO Pownsos A PLEA Deal FOR LEAST SESIEACE POSMTBK ¢ | WY. IS COEASAL LELMAA) WOT GBUGATED TS WSSAN RIS CUEST Doar HAS AA) DBA GETER TRE PSTASTAL SESTWST Me RAGES RE FACED IE Fass LOIUTY AT SHALE