Whether the change in law announced in Martinez and Trevino, when coupled with a particularly substantial deprivation of a capital defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel, establishes grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)

QUESTION PRESENTED On September 20, 2013 — eighteen months after the Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), four months after its decision in Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2018), and two months before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Sutton v. Carpenter, 745 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2014), overruled the lower court to explicitly find Tennessee among those states falling under Trevino — Tennessee inmate David Miller filed a motion seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) based upon his newly-reviewable and particularly substantial claim of resentencing counsel ineffectiveness. Though acknowledging trial counsel’s performance was inexcusably deficient, the court of appeals held Miller had not shown prejudice because the three expert reports he submitted in federal court, each of which connected Miller’s childhood trauma to his profound mental illness and that illness to the crime he committed, were not substantially different in strength and subject matter from the lay testimony of abuse and neglect presented at trial. Just 18 months ago in Buck v. Davis, _ U.S. ___, 187 S. Ct. 759 (2017), this Court faced a nearly identical scenario. Duane Buck did not seek Rule 60(b)(6) relief under Martinez, supra until twenty-one months after the Court issued that decision, seven months after the Court explicitly found Martinez applicable in Texas in Trevino, supra and three months after Miller had sought the same relief. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. In denying the certificate, the Fifth Circuit, as did the Miller court, freely acknowledged trial fi} counsel had performed deficiently. However, and once again like the Miller court, the Fifth Circuit found Buck was not prejudiced because trial counsel’s deficient performance had not substantially altered the evidentiary picture. This Court disagreed. Buck v. Davis, 1387 S. Ct. 759 (2017). David Miller stood in Duane Buck’s shoes. Fully advised as it was of this Court’s decision in Buck, the Sixth Circuit was bound to follow it. Instead, it joined with the Eighth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals to hold for all practical purposes that Buck is limited strictly to the unique facts presented. It is not. Accordingly, the following issue is now presented for review: Under Buck v. Davis, does the change in law announced in Martinez and Trevino, when coupled with a particularly substantial deprivation of a capital defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel, establish grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)? {ii}