Does the Due Process Clause guarantee an indigent petitioner the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel during actual innocence proceedings, which requires new scientific evidence not presented at trial, and are sufficiently like a trial in its adversarial format and the existence of standards for decision, as recognized by Strickland during capital sentencing proceedings?

No question identified. : . Qveshions Presented \. Does Me DOve Process Clause of Phe Fourteenth Amendment gvuavantes an indigen* Pekhoner Yo Ye Sixth Amendment Vigh* yo he assiskance oF Counsel doving Sceh\oo “ackoa\ innocence. Pvoceedings, Which Vequives New Screnkigic evidence Aol (~Ves ented a yviaN, and nat ave SvEFic‘enNy Vike @ Yvial in Pres adversavial Format and w Me existance of Shandovds For decrwsion, G&S Vecogvized oy Sivickland Soving Cagvsa\ Sentencing Proceed wigs ? a. Does Vhe Ove Process Clause og Yre Fie and Yn) Fourteen Amenitmnenss , Ww Conjone hion ith he Nohce and joy Wial quavantees of Hhe Sixth Amendments, Os Pvosevi bed by Zoes and Agevends, Place aw AER Ya hve doly on Yhe Government *o pvesevve Consh bo Konalty Marevial evidence Yo an essenhia\ Clenen! of an offense, ov bo any Fac} Necessavy yal \neveases Phe maxwon Penalty For a Cuime ? B Does a Stale Gourds Verosa\ Yo accept an Indigent pe hrionevs WMolions For Counsel, APP: Cahons For exer} assistance, Consider New Sciewhiic evidence and Wikness declavahions, Pyvovide an evidendiavy heoving OY ANOW A Weaning Fei opporhouity bo demonstvale Ones imnecence When Pvesen ted With a Cleon WMWisCavviage oF justice Cons tole Phe Onconst. Vyokional Wi Hhnol ding o¢ . Nabeas Cov pus MW Violahion of Pre. Ove Process. and. Equal Qvokechion Clavse_ of | Phe. Foorkeentdh Avmendwmens 7