under the voluntariness standard of Haynes v. Washington. The government responded to Seale’s motion on April 16, 2007. It also argued that the voluntariness standard of Haynes v. Washington applied. However, the government specifically averred that the Miranda rule did not apply, and for the first time, cited Johnson v. New Jersey. I feel it necessary to draw attention to the following passage from the government’s response: Defendant appears to recognize that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), was not decided until two years after Seale made the admission in this case, and that the procedural safeguards afforded by that decision are therefore not applicable here. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 732, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (<HOLDING>); Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 738, 89 S.Ct.
holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that  523a13 does not apply retroactively holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision