1. Are AW "rUiW

2. \ 5 W-eof €_viWv\a: 11
Cjqyw AvAcvVvonW C$tl'*' iytK) fi'tjhA ftcccjnizej 3.5 AW. reWAW process
ru^VA preseMeck unier "pWn errur
V C.?r\ appeMaAc CmvwWb AaAwve Ao
p> Y'or Vo Subwissio
Of f V C|VA ; Co i\W\A uf C
f€ WtUO 7
W 7rosecuAovs repe&AW uS^ of uiVWV\ tNoW y&wcVtvn^
responses -from AW. StaAcS> ca)sAyv.SS ( ^ se^ontA pobce cfVcer f> a.r\ e^p-evf aA
AeArAvWy cA ^AmO v/ioWVe <W process (S^ i Wh AmW mxWX
pV 'avvr error r«v\iuj ! or ^rove c_vtVc>v '"3 ' rv\\S Con iuC"j ?

A AoeS VdSCcuWA
AW mW'Vt-e.uo , $n'Tt.M V^rO •
wibvmWeA cW v ms oo\AY\ cVn\
(OWnA , ©Y' > yy€ »\ *35
UttWr vVv\cWW>WYCsM-tvO
n oV , *pp<*\ , AoSA aA< YC wt
pK-ejvlcUc'C C SUSC,
M'n Wr
sAAevwerA boVAer my jx/ciucVAny -(-
of AW SAcA-eSor AW e^pev'V ujAfeSS 1
\jOvAweS S , Con sA Acfe
o n Wrsmeo-e^sm?'H
^Ytfs-e. o-xVoy 1 ^\ wu^cor\ AvJvcA j or 6- ovoWA-ion oA <We p>vac*s*.s
*'pYdVfv C.Y'r'o'T '' Y'tVVCvO , wWrY cmVf CAr owm SW vr\va\ e\A WrvU. VS ^y<_-£

C - A -\V\e ^Vb-Vc SmpreY'V GouvA <\o€S v\<A specy bcoA y ~sV~rA'~C AVvA \As Aecv 'S\e,i _'*
vs WsW ov\ cx proeeWrW WfduVr , WVwcA should W \AerAAvW by. AW
CvUrA e7Cp\wV\v|i OoW VrsVrvcA CoCvA wo-W"

Whether the state court's admission of 'vouching' testimony from a police officer expert witness violated the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment