Where a State conditions a death sentence on a jury's unanimous finding beyond a reasonable doubt that "there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society,"

(1) Does the recantation by the State's expert witness of his trial testimony as to the defendant's "future dangerousness" give rise to a cognizable constitutional claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments that the defendant's death sentence is insufficiently reliable to be allowed to stand?

(2) If such a recantation raises either a cognizable Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim, does a state court err in refusing to entertain them based on its own misunderstanding of the claim being advanced?

Whether a state court errs in refusing to entertain a cognizable Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim based on a state expert's recantation of trial testimony on the issue of the defendant's future dangerousness