1. Can convictions for crimes requiring specific intent create constitutional error where the trial court has ruled that the evidence supports criminal negligence?

2. Do Edwards v. Arizona and Davis v. United States require law enforcement to stop custodial interrogation and provide a suspect with counsel if a suspect makes an unequivocal request for counsel, even after the suspect's original requests for counsel were limited or equivocal?

3. In a capital case where the jury determines sentencing, do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require a juror to be willing to meaningfully consider nonstatutory mitigating circumstances?

Can convictions for crimes requiring specific intent create constitutional error where the trial court has ruled that the evidence supports criminal negligence?