Juan Antonio Lamar Kinley v. Tim Shoop, Warden

I. Did the court of appeals err when stating that Petitioner argued the state knowingly used false confession testimony, when Petitioner never argued that, thereby failing to address the question of whether Petitioner’s rights to a fair trial were violated under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, when the prosecution’s star witness later admitted that he lied in testifying Petitioner confessed to the crimes? (16th Ground for Relief.) II. Did the court of appeals err in finding there was no reasonable likelihood that the guilty verdict in Petitioner’s trial “would” have been different, instead of “could” have been different, when the prosecution knowingly used false testimony going to the heart of its star witness’s credibility, and that the confession testimony was not “material,” leaving only circumstantial evidence to support the guilty verdict? And, did the court of appeals similarly err when it failed to address, at all, whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the penalty phase verdict could have been different, if the fact finder had not been lied to about the star witness’s motivation to testify against Petitioner? (17th Ground for Relief.) III. Does this Court’s precedent require a trial court to tell a capital defendant that a single juror’s “life” vote during the trial’s penalty phase is enough to prevent a death sentence, before the defendant’s jury waiver can be considered valid? (5th Ground for Relief.)