1. Whether a state can, consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, apply a rule categorically assigning de minimis probative value to relevant mitigating evidence because it lacks a causal nexus to the offense; and

2. Whether, in conducting de novo individualized sentencing review to correct an Eddings error committed at trial or on direct appeal, a state can refuse to consider relevant mitigation evidence in the record simply because it was developed and presented in post-conviction proceedings rather than in the original trial.

Question not identified.