II. Whether under all the circumstances, including an officer's knowing and
deliberate deployment of Petitioner's wife to elicit statements from
Petitioner while he was in custody, the falsity of the information the officer
gave her to convey to the petitioner, the strength of the incentive he
proffered to induce the Petitioner to speak, and the fact that similar tactics
were deliberately employed to obtain confessions Petitioner's codefendants, introduction of the resulting statement Petitioner's Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966).

I. Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' determination that the
Petitioner's subsequent petition failed to satisfy the requirements of Article
11.071, § 5(a)(2) was an adequate and independent state ground precluding
merits review of his claim where that provision authorizes a subsequent
petition when "by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the
United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant
guilty beyond a _ reasonable doubt" and the confession whose
constitutionality Petitioner is challenging was the only significant evidence
linking him to the capital murder with which he was charged.

Whether the introduction of Petitioner's statement violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona