1. Washington's personal identity petition hon eastern powers Conviction proceedings Who Are loucden & pcoa? a boty Sed +o Nhe. Setidioned oN ise.) Be Rom a Stondacd a exOC-An actual and substantia | P@iadice, \q Admion, indigent petitions ae denied ageciatmont of course) ns. dinvestiqative Lunds and devices ontille ciel A mines Ahork She issves Gised wm Aho Pebivon (2.00% "Seiveloos" (RCW. 19.73.1500)5 Mepodi Ee 5). Monreres she Cour of Agteals also @aits Perivionecs to Nemonsivake. thal Merc clams ae not fivolos wit Pcompatent, admissible evidence" Anak ie often impossible "wele of cooasel, invesbigatots, expechs and foc he Powem ko 4 oOMA UhMMe ses and pbotaia_discovesy ( n_ Rice). Doesttais wordy iasuctountalle exideatiany fooler depeine indiqens pelihione ls of Alnor SAwendmrt Cr AOD cals So dve process o& \awandloc YC Wi Avwendnens calats. lo due. process oC las an¥ val Prorecsion of Ye las under the 0.5 Constibobion?

2. NoVne. evidenbiaty equitemwts imposed ba lone Rice a Niolake. Wag poh geen guns eek ce ee

3. Gon dw. extonesos denial of an indigent defendant's @-AV\a\ SA exper Myciadtic. Sexvices onder Ake v, 10k! noma dowage, Hy Constitutional Smmesck oa Mita \Arial\ +o BOK Mn RAN exter as +o qualita r\ve CL ( AS aroctoml?

4. Coo Soe, exvoteors denial Dan indigent Aefenkan's lBkiahoma, give. tise too cracigie pesumghione

5. Did MWe Ake, exo in Pokionet's case deny Vetitionec n> 0 Wik tn: due pracess of law ondeCMne. Sandfoc \H** cameos of Ye V5, Constrrodion, equal erorection the \ au oder Se un Awendurents, and | ot -tongulseny a Paces aadfac/asnssrance o& counsel vader the QR Awendwaonrs?

6. Dees te Secision sf the Wasbinglon Cooth at Appeals ismissing Pelionets PRE as Vavoloos conClick with dhe, MeWi\ans y. Dana, od [5c tre 0.9, Coot of Appeals ASIONS \A_McWiliams v. Comm! rams ve Comm! and for Seidel y. Merkle andlor McShane vilabe? SC"

7. AIM. \e 0 A? dismissed Ped ono 6 Pee os, Rvolous Nea ok o

Questions Presented