Whether Washington State's evidentiary rules regarding post-conviction relief violate due process when determining habeas corpus claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \) Whether the Stave Coutk's Sontal . —o® Petitioner Smiths Motion To Qecall the Mandeve Coo Clecloal wn. | miscalesloring the +ime. Lor . , Li\ing Pelitioner Smithic collateral . CANNEL) Wh ZOIO Udder RCW (0.73. O40 ConShitvtes On Uncensktut. Smiths cigne +o WabeaS Corpus / Under he United Stakes Conshi2 Aubion Suceension Clause in Art | etcl2? , 2) Whether Washingron Stave Court & \asy cesers \naS AeCided an WW Port = On Ledera\ quesh on, as +o Whether Xve derial & Seitles Motion 40 Recall che Miandere, cont ites wer chile . Sveceme. Courts nding An «che case KH Boumoarene vi Gash ,225 UAS.7T23 (206%) Sueceme Court | | : ether xne Stake K Washington's 3 coy GhooliShm ew of Setioner Smixhis ‘Mebion Te Recall the Mand — axe xO Cocreck Clectcal msStekes Sywialidecting Time. Ger Calevlectrions . Koluke Due erecess K Law ? . GQ. ,