The district court ruled that police coerced the defendant's confession and granted defendant's motion to suppress the confession and its physical fruit. The court, however, later ruled that the government could impeach the defendant with the confession and its physical fruit if he testified. At trial, the defendant chose not to testify.

The first question presented is under Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612–13 (1972), did the district court's ruling permitting impeachment with the confession and its fruit impermissibly interfere with defendant's right to counsel about "the actual worth" of defendant testifying in his own defense?

The second question presented is did the Seventh Circuit err when it distinguished the impeachment ruling as "far afield from the extreme circumstances" in Brooks where state statute required the defendant to testify first in the defense's case or not at all, contrary to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

Under Brooks v. Tennessee, did the district court's ruling permitting impeachment with the coerced confession and its physical fruit impermissibly interfere with defendant's right to counsel about testifying in his own defense?