1. DOES IT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WHEN A STATE INTENTIONALLY REFUSES
TO DEFINE EVERY ELEMENTAL FACT IN "ALTERNATIVE MEANS" STATUTE THEREBY
CREATING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION ON DISPOSITIVE ISSUES OF
AGGRAVATING FACTOR THAT RELIEVES THE STATE OF ITS BURDEN OF PROOF AND
, PRECLUDING FURTHER CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY?

2. DOES THIS TYPE OF ERROR FORM A BASIS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE UPON A
MERITORIOUS OBJECTION BASED ON A LACK OF UNANIMITY UNDER RICHARDSON V. US
AND SCHAD V. ARIZONA WHICH COULD MAKE THEIR ANALYSIS CATEGORICAL AND IN
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE?

3. IN LIGHT OF SUCH ERRORS, SHOULD THE GIVING OF INITIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE CONSIDERED A CRITICAL STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS?

Does it violate the due process clause when a state intentionally refuses to define every elemental fact in 'alternative means' statute thereby creating an unconstitutional presumption on dispositive issues of aggravating factor that relieves the state of its burden of proof and precluding further constitutional scrutiny?