Should pre se, incaccecated Habeas Corpus petitioners be Procedural ly time-bacced when The multi- yeac COVID-19 Pandemic created "Extenocdinary Cireunstacces ond impedimexts beyoad thetic Cextro| ?

A) When prises law \ibraries Were shuttered Loe Years dur incy the Covip-(4 lockdown, Should pro se Inmates be held +te Impossible dead\ines 7 Or Sheuld a One- year extensien be aranted Lor lege | fi lings duc os) the Pandemic Via Fedem| Kules of Civil Procedure CF Rc) Rule GO?

») Sheuld Pre se inmectes ) Aci acy the Cevro-/9 Pandemic lockdousn , be dered a equal P¢poctuaity to do lege | research te [earn of = Couct rules /deadlines as these able to hire "outside" attecneys P Or should a One-year extension be arated 7 Lor leagl Filings during the Fandemie via Federn| Rules of Civil Proceduce (FRcP) Kule Go?

(@)) Should Courts Te coanize " etual Lnmocence" of CXonerating DNA (Etecd and haic) evidence OS oO means te remeve Procedure | time bars in @ fro se Petit ener's 'Habeas Cocpus © (Lower Coucts are adivided on this issue.) A) Should trial courts dery defendants the Use of exeneratiag DNA evidence Simply because the DNA is not yet resistered In @ Climinal delabase and the third-pacty donor is ) Uaknousn © B) Should +rial courts Supplaak Se\entiFic DNA evidence With mere Speculation and Circumstantial evidence or would this lead to a Sucqe in Wrongful Coavietions Nationwide , Signi cast ly Miminishing ~ the public Corfidence in The pdicial system?

Whether pro se, incarcerated habeas corpus petitioners should be granted procedural time extensions due to extraordinary COVID-19 pandemic circumstances that impeded legal research and filing deadlines