1. Whether, even after Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018), when the last state court to decide a prisoner's federal claim explains its decision on the merits in a reasoned opinion, but only gives reasons that knock down a "straw man" not briefed or argued by the prisoner, a federal habeas court must still defer to that state court's ultimate ruling, even though the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale ruled for the prisoner.

2. Whether the Seventh Circuit properly applied the issue-preclusive aspect of the Double Jeopardy Clause with the "realism and rationality" required by this Court in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), where the Seventh Circuit found the State of Indiana was not forbidden by the Double Jeopardy Clause from attempting to criminally convict Petitioner at a retrial for the first of two immediately connected shootings, even though a prior jury at an earlier trial had already acquitted Petitioner for the second shooting on the ground of self-defense, after being instructed that a person cannot have acted in self-defense if he provoked, instigated, or participated willingly in the violence.

Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes retrial for attempted murder after acquittal for murder in self-defense