-/L, Motion to iSuppuss Loas -efror Gs it in as
did not]fllulllinr th& ryl
djLftionstrcJsd Ikb P-^titi
patliy to (xialv-e. his Custoclid fi^ht 5 ?i/Uj 6/1
\ksu ifitulUctudCO,' p SS5-JSSS lonsir
cLnitd ^T-fed/ivuL. assist an us of Co&tnssl
cljiftndant to ihb boltIaIkdlur fdtlt iQlfur LOGS
L)L_n his tried laiOijJtr
stand in dudd-ft knobOm<\thsu Cb'clu-Cun dani boould off-e-rfei/oro-bbsfaiLd to Cali IL mss * co■VJids.ti<UL,to ilisL, cfje.bn ssl.position of MJiC^L pc-us^ntJL^
d by tlub trid Court 7 db (ga/l^v^ imp
t failed to fol/obo tluo dicta-t-es bf hhiiUr, Coty
ufzs Gs tLj apply intkibf iOiV-e,fif!-*Jia/rLe/ie/hc, lYhfeUo-(oos JL.xc~u&si\jJb and f/nproszJl
d Illinois sta-t 'os*

Whether the ruling on the Motion to Suppress was error as it was demonstrated the Petitioner did not possess the intellectual capacity to waive his Custodial rights?