1. When a court issues a procedural ruling not to extend the benefits of a
new rule collaterally to those who did not preserve their claim, does the Sixth
Amendment protect a criminal defendant from the ineffectiveness of his
counsel who admitted reviewing such a claim but chose not to raise it in past
proceedings on the incorrect belief that it was not viable, which was contrary
to available law at that time.

2. Whether the right to equal protection of the law is violated by
Massachusetts's "gatekeeper" provision (M.G.L. c. 278, §33E) for the review of
first-degree murder appeals from adverse postconviction decisions because
said defendants are being treated differently than all others seeking review of
a collateral claim brought in the first available instance due to predecessor
counsel's ineffectiveness and the absence of an adequate record on direct
appeal to ensure that it was reviewed on its merits.

When a court issues a procedural ruling not to extend the benefits of a new rule collaterally to those who did not preserve their claim, does the Sixth Amendment protect a criminal defendant from the ineffectiveness of his counsel who admitted reviewing such a claim but chose not to raise it in past proceedings on the incorrect belief that it was not viable, which was contrary to available law at that time