Under the Fifth Aniedrnent/Miranda Right's; The Sixth Amendment And Due Process Clause of the Fourtheenth Amendment as Applied to AEDPA Habeas Corpus. 28 U.S.C.2254

WHEFHER UNDER MIRANDA MUST A DEFENDANT ' S INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS AND BODY LANGUAGE BE EXCLUDED AS CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION WITHOUT, ADVISEMENT OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS" WHERE A SUSPECT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO A POLICE STATION IN A PATROL CAR, PLACED IN A ROOM WITHOUT HANDCUFFS BY A DETECTIVE, TOLD HE IS FREE TO LEAVE.

WHETHER ALLEGED NON-CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS AT A POLICE STATION OR AT WHAT POINT THE INTERROGATIONS BECOME CUSTODIAL AND INADMISIBLE IN LIGHT OF MIRANDA.

WHETHER, CONFUSING, CONFLICTING AND MISLEADING INSTRUCTIONS THAT INFORMS THE JURY THE REQUIRED PROOF OF UNION OR JOINT OPERATION OF ACT CONCERNING CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR, REQUIRE REVERSAL BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHICH CONFLICTING INSTRUCTIONS THE JURY FOLLOWED.?

WHETHER OR WHAT DEGREE OF. -EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A DEFENDANT HAS INFLICTED BODILY HARM RESULTING FROM THE USE OF FORCE MORE THAN THE FORCE NECESSARY TO COMMIT SPECIFIED SEXUAL OFFENSES.?

WHETHER THE STATE COURTS DECISION WAS AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW.?

WHETHER UNDER THE AEDPA STANDARD PETITIONER HAD MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION NECESSARY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (CoA).?

Whether defendant's incriminating statements and body language should be excluded as custodial interrogation without Miranda advisement