1) wher Extrating aN INvoluNtary CoNtessioN by Police threat's andlor promises when te. delectues Can Never be Harmless Error Rex vs- Teeples, 753 u5,503,jHaykes -Us-Washington, 373 U.5,5032 JacksoN-US- DenNo, 378 U.S, 368; Missouri-USSeibert 542 U.5,(00; Miraxda-Us- Arizona, 384 d.S 436 Which is a sth of the Cvited states Constitutiox of 17gl, whichis a due process af /aw which indeed caused.ar immediate and direct injury to Petitiarer's CoustitutioNal Rightsa See AppeNpix A 3page5

UIns STOso E Their own law of sectian (09-3,1 (3) Persons changed with Relonies purguant to 720 Fles 5 110g-3. 1 62, The states failure to arraigue deferdant within The Statute of limitatins of 30 days Defendant was State filed for a Bill of rndictmeri on April was offically Charged by an Arraigument and handed a copy of said txnictmeni , From March $21^ + until April 20th 2000, Was the statute of limitations had run. That is 44 days after bcins Takes into custody and 14 days after sndictment was do to defendant, The statute of limitations is tolled when the state commences prosecutiax 225 sles 5/11-1 (west 2ooo) which must be reviewed is whether rhe Circut court abused its discretion in dexying defendant's potione to dismiss the chargr, where such motion to dismiss where of the Code, be withoui prejudier y urless one of Judge is attributed to the state oR To the Court appointed counser There were No waived thiks. ever Sismed to agree to , Nor Knoled KNowins abo GNY NoV for motians for Substution of Judge MllerUs39/ 439 83 S.C4.822 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (963), 7pages urry 405 F.2d 112 See APPENDIX B Petitiover tried to obtain his Piscovery and Attarveys work produet con

Whether the use of a coerced confession as substantive evidence at trial violates due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments