Juanito Marshall v. George A. Frederick, Warden

Whether a federal court violates the “party presentation principle” and exceeds its authority under United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020), and Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012), by sua sponte invoking a procedural default defense that the State expressly waived by twice electing to litigate the merits of the petition in its responsive pleadings.

Whether a pro se habeas petitioner satisfies the “fair presentation” requirement under Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971), and Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004), by providing the “substantial equivalent” of a federal claim through reliance on state precedents that apply federal constitutional standards - specifically where the petitioner satisfies the multi-factor test established by the circuit court of appeals to guide such exhaustion.

Whether a federal court’s refusal to reach the merits of a habeas petition - despite a state-court error so “egregious” and “lacking in justification” that it defies fair-minded disagreement - constitutes a failure to prevent a manifest miscarriage ofjustice under Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011).

Whether a state court’s’ harmless-error determination is “unreasonable” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) when the court (a) fails to conduct the mandatory “impact on the jury” analysis required by Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), and (b) bases its “overwhelming evidence” finding on a factual record of conflicting and inconsistent testimony that was bolstered by the unconstitutional admission of “other acts” evidence.