I.
IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT THE APPELLANT'S
POST-ARREST INTERVIEW WHEN THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED HIS
FIFTH
AMENDMENT
RIGHTS
BY
FORCIBLY
USING
HIS
FINGER
PRINTS TO ATTEMPT TO UNLOCK HIS CELLULAR PHONE.

II.
IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO DENY THE APPELLANT'S
REQUEST, UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT COMPULSORY PROCESS
FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES
IN HIS FAVOR, TO INTERVIEW AND
POTENTIALLY CALL HIS CO-DEFENDANT AS A WITNESS.

III.
THE
DEFENSE
REQUESTED
FOR
MULTIPLE
JURY
INSTRUCTION
CONSPIRACIES.

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the appellant's post-arrest interview when the government violated his Fifth Amendment rights by forcibly using his fingerprints to attempt to unlock his cellular phone