1. Whether a report from a qualified neuropsychiatrist that a condemned prisoner is incompetent for execution that is not contradicted by any qualified expert by the state, provide s sufficient evidence to establish a substantial threshold showing of insanity to require a "fair hearing in accord with fundamental fairness" as mandated by this Court's decisions in Ford and Panetti .

2. Whether the Missouri Supreme Court's practice issuing findings of fact and credibility determinations based entirely on a paper record and issuing final adjudications on the merits of condemned priso ners' Ford /Panetti claims without permitting discovery or an evidentiary hearing in an expedited manner violates procedural due process.

3. Whether the Missouri Supreme Court's disparate treatment of habeas corpus petitions from condemned men raising Ford /Panetti claims with the petitions of other prisoner 's state habeas petitions in situations where the record is not adequately developed by affordin g all other habeas petitioners an evidentiary hearing before a Special Master, violates due process and equal protection .

Whether a report from a qualified neuropsychiatrist that a condemned prisoner is incompetent for execution that is not contradicted by any qualified expert by the state, provides sufficient evidence to establish a substantial threshold showing of insanity to require a 'fair hearing in accord with fundamental fairness' as mandated by this Court's decisions in Ford and Panetti