At Petitioner's trial for the murder of his wife, the state prosecutor proceeded under a murder-for-hire theory that relied entirely on the testimony of the self-confessed actual killer, who had turned state's evidence, pled guilty in exchange for leniency, and was awaiting sentencing. The witness's plea agreement, which was entered into evidence, was conditioned on his passing a polygraph examination, but the State chose not to administer the polygraph prior to Petitioner's trial. Petitioner's counsel emphasized in closing argument that the prosecutor's decision to forego the polygraph was a reason to doubt the witness's credibility. Following Petitioner's closing argument, at the request of the prosecutor, the judge instructed the jury that if the witness had passed a polygraph, that result would not have been admissible in Petitioner's trial. Then, in the State's rebuttal closing, the prosecutor told the jury that the witness was still subject to a polygraph up to the day he is sentenced and should he fail, his agreement goes away. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a state judge violates a defendant's due process right to a fair trial by giving an impromptu jury instruction regarding the credibility of the prosecution's key witness in direct rebuttal to the defendant's closing argument.

2. Whether a state prosecutor violates a defendant's due process right to a fair trial by telling the jury in rebuttal closing that the cooperating witness is subject to a polygraph after the trial and should he fail, his plea agreement goes away.

Whether a state judge violates a defendant's due process right to a fair trial by giving an impromptu jury instruction regarding the credibility of the prosecution's key witness in direct rebuttal to the defendant's closing argument