1. Whether the Federal Due Process Clause requires a state to apply a new interpretation of a state criminal statute retroactively to cases on collateral review, and if so, when?

2. When a judicial decision provides a new interpretation of a controlling criminal statute to require additional facts or elements to be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt before a judge may consider imposing a death sentence, is it a ruling setting forth substantive law or one adopting a rule of procedure?

3. Whether Petitioner was denied his rights under the Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment when: (1) the Florida Supreme Court in his case refused to apply its recent construction of § 921.141, F.S., that before death was an available sentence, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not just one aggravating circumstance, but also that the aggravating circumstances found were sufficient and that they outweighed the mitigating circumstances; and (2) the Florida Supreme Court applied the recent construction of § 921.141 in homicide prosecutions where the homicides at issue were committed as many as four years before the one in Petitioner's case.

Whether the Federal Due Process Clause requires a state to apply a new interpretation of a state criminal statute retroactively to cases on collateral review