1. Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred by holding it was not error to refuse to instruct the jury of the effect of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, and by refusing to allow petitioner voir dire on this possible verdict since Due Process and the Eighth Amendment mandated truthful information in a capital case where the jury knows from the time of voir dire that it is the probable sentencer?

2. Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred by holding it was not error to deny a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal roadblock conducted by two bored police officers with minimal oversight and excessive discretion because its purpose was to detect ordinary criminal wrongdoing, violating petitioner's right to be free of unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth Amendment as explained in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)?

Whether the Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clause require a trial court in a capital case to instruct the jury on the effect of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict and permit voir dire questioning regarding that possible verdict, and whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the admission of evidence obtained through an illegal roadblock conducted without adequate judicial oversight or particularized suspicion of criminal activity