1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by establishing—in conflict with the decisions of other circuits—a categorical rule requiring the admission of expert testimony that opines on the allegedly coercive circumstances of a confession to a crime.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit otherwise erred when it mandated the admission of expert testimony that certain lawful interrogation techniques generate false, coerced confessions, where the purpose of such testimony was to impermissibly bolster Tekoh's account of the circumstances of his confession.

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by establishing a categorical rule requiring the admission of expert testimony on the allegedly coercive circumstances of a confession