1. Does a criminal defendant state a prima facie case of vindictive
prosecution, trigging a presumption of vindictiveness, when the day after he
succeeds in getting half the prosecution's case dismissed after representing
himself in a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor files new charges, based on
the same facts, that result in a sentence nearly twice as long as the stayed
sentence ultimately imposed on the charges sustained at the preliminary
hearing?

2. Does the failure of counsel on state direct appeal to raise the
foregoing vindictive prosecution claim establish cause and prejudice to excuse
a procedural default when there was no valid reason for failing to raise the
claim and the claim was the only one certified for appeal in federal habeas,
reflecting that it was petitioner's strongest federal constitutional claim?

Does a criminal defendant state a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution, triggering a presumption of vindictiveness, when the day after he succeeds in getting half the prosecution's case dismissed after representing himself in a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor files new charges, based on the same facts, that result in a sentence nearly twice as long as the stayed sentence ultimately imposed on the charges sustained at the preliminary hearing?