Whetner Strongly believes that the United States Court of Appeals for The Fifth Circuit's decision sanctioned such a departure from accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by a lower court and calls this Court to exercise its supervisory power. Also, this issue is specifically may not have been serried by this Court and the Petitioner seeks clarification by this Court.

The Petitioner, during interrogation, invoked his right for Counsel and added "for the Sake of my Wife." He did further that he did not want to speak when the detective sought to confirm the Petitioner's request for Counsel.

Firstly, if the Petitioner did want counsel for himself, as well but "for the Sake of my wife" make his request for Counsel does add equivocably.

If when the detective followed Petitioner's request for Counsel seeking clarification, the Petitioner stated that he did not want to speak. Was this or was it not a clear invocation of his Fifth Amendment right?

Lastly, in light of the first two questions, if this Court finds those to be clear invocations of the Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right for counsel and to remain silent, then was it harmful to admit such evidence in the Petitioner's trial, violating his Fourteenth Amendment right?

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's decision sanctioned a departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by a lower court, and whether this issue may not have been settled by this Court and the Petitioner seeks clarification