Whether the United States Court of Appeals erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on alleged Eighth Amendment rights violations and expert testimony exclusion

I'/♦'The 3ezC\s\6vx by -Vke Unl-VeA CoiLf^ of Is skooAA be fe\Aer^eJ P e^iAetoe \a -Hie ftgk-V mo 5 4" -fMovable fo -fae PhWnKK a^A AenteA kVw + |fty + obu>v On £*(&+ Wt+ne-ss f^JW iTcM+es kfe MgVvb^ ? c3> fcs Pkn-W a ju/y C0(x|A fg,|,y 0/9on orij ^-o ^e^erirjtYLC ■/h<Z'^ £fghWi Ame^dw^T ri'gk+5 viola-bed toY -Hie, D&i&nia^rf-^P 3 iota-red 6^ V)«.-s 'Hl£ OtsAvToV U|Av>x « r» *»». an exf^r-f(V Piam -hTT s cw > eve^T -Hroua^ heJs W^-b? ^5^.Tke AKnbh CxVcat-b ha^ A«< led -bo adofb ■^Vx\\)U m-verfreb-a+rtu <?•£ fej^/ ^|e DviAencc. T 0(a Aule Tob^) vjhtcVi fe/nn'-l+o u.5-e 'fyie.i f Av^cte-Kftvi -bo OL^for+^syi ~fee-5 wke/^ won | A b# ic$&4tc( -^z^r'f4t€ A<rr Si A ^-6 Ci^A vio'F Ju/j+ -Pjy -Fhe 'b&^Cnd^n'H ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Q-u e sK o CorvV n UztyteeL (b) rt lezjal or CwiVf^ed dor dke PtewdvPf do *i/\ P^v\ pbc Ptve days unpkan beyond s^lv^jed , to ashed > eye gtobe ^d\A nop m^eP dhe CoMmu^i-^/ s+a^cterds o-( twelve -fo Pwenhy —Pour SBlMFkvours? (^) Thg U/vf-ped <?’HchcS Coafd Op Af^emls k,#$ wudg Otn \)\a5 ed) er for 3 re vtea/idig PVt<Wvf P s J^nuAne 4>^fuAe op ykupeffal Pacb on vuke-fher orna-|■VW we/e d<sl\ber^-hsly mA vPPer^b do h\s med\cal neeA^anA ^re^ul+^Ue <J nod g/rKdl^d do ^udgme^id cl^ a rn^+f'ef aP lavU^J+k^d H ^^nsf\d(dnoybcc[ p ftas +Ue OmleJ -S<H+*6 04> m'^CArfieA dhe UaJ op Avuo-K^C do PlA^ndt-pps a()p€x2 Isj^hou/iVi^ dkAp iV<X b’T' Ix^/Sk^ed 5 4nd ) 46 A ViV€/^7€ i rAvppG/'f/'id K&MdCdd^ (Smer^-^fy 5urqery by classIPyiv^ vV as 'ur^^d "wken We ,d ' should Vvuve b^en ^S/paf a«4 'kwefje/^y has i s ? (tf) bid dVve OePe^d./Md' Or. (Lu^Keed f ^-formed vnalpfucdfce par Pa< lure do Qd voke^ he Kweu/ he iep-'H ’ ‘-)4ve PUhvpvPp^ cedxvut d^d ’^zli^d -from Vus eye^Vobe ^ur^ery oAWrx Ak/wi iFe.fl'kd^Cunfl 1+^o™pv\yp