Whether federal habeas review of a silent state court denial of
competency-related habeas claims must consider the state court's
appellate opinion on a related competency claim to determine
whether the state court unreasonably applied Supreme Court
precedent, and whether the state court made unreasonable
determinations of fact in doing so, when the state has a unitary
appeal and habeas review system.

Whether a state court can reasonably deny without a hearing both
an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failing to request a
competency hearing, and a claim petitioner was incompetent to
proceed, when the only contemporaneous expert opinion was that
the defendant suffered from a 60 iQ, was neurologically damaged
and was incompetent to proceed, and medical records and
subsequent mental health reviews are in accord.

Whether any state court could be found to have reasonably
applied Supreme Court precedent when it denied without an
evidentiary hearing a habeas corpus claim that trial counsel was
ineffective under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because
trial counsel failed to advise the trial court that the defense expert
psychologist had conducted testing and determined that the
defendant was incompetent to proceed to trial.

Whether trial counsel's failure to advise the trial court that the
defendant has been found incompetent to proceed to trial by an
expert is entitled to deference under Strickland v. Washington,
when trial counsel himself stated he questioned his client's
competency to proceed.

Does the Ninth Circuit's rule that it cannot consider on habeas a
claim of implied bias from a juror who is untruthful in voir dire on
material elements of the case because such a claim is not
recognized by this Court comport with this Court's precedent that
such claims have long been recognized by the Court. [There is
inter and intra-circuit conflict on this question]

Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were properly denied by the state court without an evidentiary hearing or meaningful review