1) Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution are violated when a capital sentencing panel issues a death sentence after a paltry presentence investigation despite the defendants refusal to introduce mitigating evidence, evidence regarding proportionality, or raise legal issues while exercising his right to represent himself pro se.

2) Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated when a State Supreme Court adopts a rule allowing the prosecution in a capital case to introduce evidence proving uncharged and non-statutory aggravating circumstances under the guise of refuting statutory mitigating circumstances when the pro se Defendant introduced no mitigating evidence, the pro se Defendant twice told the sentencing panel that he did not intend to present any mitigating evidence, and there was only a remote possibility that the sentencing panel would find any of the statutory mitigators present from the information contained in the meager presentence investigation report.

Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated when a capital sentencing panel issues a death sentence despite the defendant's refusal to introduce mitigating evidence, evidence regarding proportionality, or raise legal issues while exercising his right to represent himself pro se