1. whether a state 's application ano enforcement of its Procedural
Bars via its highest appellate Court in Certain Cases resultin
annihilation Ano Diminution of Fundamental Constitutional
rights ano Claims ora Claim within a Particular Cause of
ACTION As SPECIES OF VALUABLE ANO PERSONAL PRIVATE INCORPOREAL
OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY THAT IS "TAKEN BY" ToDIClAL OECREE "FqR
Governmental use ^ithout 'Just Compensation anothe process Oue
in comport with due process ?

A. WHETHER THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL EXPOSTFACTO LAW C LAUSEtS) OF
united states Constitution article 8t$ lo extends To situa
tions WHERE AS A RESULT OF STATE LEGISLATIVE FIAT A "NEW"
CRIMS OR offense IS CREATED USING THE SAME PRE-EXISTING
statutory elements to define the "new * offense while simultan
eously Chaw GinGthe Prior sentencing Guidelines But not Give the
"new " sentencing Provision retroactive retrospective effect ?

3. whether the foreclosure ano Precluding of retroactive and Retro
spective APPLICATION OF A "NEW** SENTENCING GUIDELINE*0RTHE
SAME STATUTORY ELEMENTS DEFINED FOR MURDER UNDER PRE-EXISTING
L Aw VIOLATES THE OuE PROCESS CLAUSES ANO EGlUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
of v. s. c. ART. m, 5 1, Ano run afoul of the ex Post facto law clauses
(U.S.C.ART.X, 55<mo>?

H. WHETHER THE " NEw " STATUTORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES FoR MuROER
CREATE A ENTITLEMENT AnO A PRESUMPTION OF AND A "LIBERTY INTER
EST " PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF U.S.C. ART. 1%$! TO THE
Class of offenders affected thereby But precluded from accessto
ATTAIN A "\SURY DETERMINATION* ' TO IMPOSE A LIFE SENTENCE RATH-
erthan a Fudges imposition of a life sentence once Prescribed
UNDER PRE-EXISTING LAW RO?

Whether a state's application and enforcement of procedural bars via its highest appellate court results in the annihilation of fundamental constitutional rights without due process and just compensation, and whether new statutory sentencing guidelines for murder create a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause while precluding retroactive application