Does California's death penalty statute violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to meaningfully narrow the class of death-eligible murders?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Rule 14.1(a)) As this Court has explained, the Eighth Amendment requires both that a State limit the class of death-eligible defendants to avoid arbitrariness, and that it allow individualized discretion in selecting which members of this narrow class will actually be sentenced to death. See, e.g., Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 972 (1994). States must comply with both requirements. See Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 173-174, 126 S.Ct. 2516, 165 L.Ed.2s 429 (2006), citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S., 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). The questions presented in this petition address the failure of California’s death penalty scheme to comply with these constitutional demands. 1. Does California’s death penalty statute violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by failing to meaningfully narrow the class of death-eligible murders? 2. Does California’s death penalty scheme, which imposes no burden of proof on capital sentencing decisions, violate the requirement under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution that every fact that serves to increase the statutory maximum for the crime must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? i