This case weaves these threads together and asks whether due process requires a state post-conviction review process in those rare instances where a State has repudiated a false theory on a new theory of liability that was never subjected to an adversarial testing.

Whether due process requires a state post-conviction review process when a state has repudiated a false theory of criminal liability on which it based a death sentence, but intends to carry out that sentence based on a new theory of liability that was never subjected to adversarial testing