1. When, in reviewing the two-part claim that trial counsel was ineffective both for
failing to provide known, relevant information to mental health ex perts appointed to determine
Butler's trial competence, and for failing altog ether to conduct any investig ation of B utler's
competence, the court of appeals recasts the claim as solely a failure to provide known
information to the appointed ex perts, then denies that un-presented claim, must the Court
exercise its supervisory power to assure the fairness of the judicial process?

2. When, in reviewing the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
altog ether to conduct any investig ation of B utler's mental health afflictions as mitig ating
evidence, the court of appeals wholly mis-characteriz es the mitig ating evidence that reasonable
investig ation would have found and then analy zes the prejudice associated with counsel's
deficient performance ag ainst a state law framework that was not the law at the time B utler was
tried, must the Court ex ercise its supervisory power to assure the fairness of the judicial process?

When must the Court exercise its supervisory power to assure the fairness of the judicial process?