Yablonsky v. California

1. HOW CAN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPHOLD CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS IF THE COURT ALLOWS STATE TERRITORIES TO PLUNDER THE CORNERSTONES OF THOSE LAWS WITH ROGUISH MOTIVES, WHO ALLOW PROSECUTORS TO MANIPULATE FACTS UNTIL THEY ARE HISTORICALLY INNACURATE. 2. IS IT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTS INTENTION AND IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ALLOW PROSECUTORS TO MANIPULATE/ MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE UNTIL THEY ARE HISTORICALLY INNACURATE IN ORDER TO COERSE VERDICTS THAT ARE UNRELIABLE WHEN THE TOTATLITY OF ALL OTHER EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE CASE WHICH ARE INCULPATING,IS LESS THAN CIRCUMSTANCIAL? 3. IF THE STATE PROSECUTORS ENTIRE CASE CENTERED ON AN INTERROGATION RECORDING THAT WAS ILLEGALLY HELD. WOULDN'T THE PROSECUTOR' ALTERING REAL TIME RESPONSES INTO HISTORICALLY INNACURATE ANSWERS VIOLATE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL . LAW UNDER THE XIV AMENDMENT UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION NAPUE V ILLIONOIS 360 U.S. 264? 4. IS IT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES TO ' ALLOW TRIAL COUNSEL TO ESCAPE FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO FULLY INVESTIGATE MATERIAL EVIDENCES WHICH ARE TANGIBLE AUDIO RECORDINGS AS WELL AS SCIENTIFIC DNA EVIDENCES BEFORE : THEY MAKE CRITICAL STRATEGIC DECISIONS WHICH FORFIET DEFENDANTS RIGHTS TO PLACE PROSECUTORS CASES TO EFFECTIVE AND MEANINGFUL ADVERSARIAL CHALLENGES UNITED STATES V CRONIC 466 U, S 648?