Whether newly-discovered evidence establishes that racial prejudice influenced the decision of at least one juror to convict Mr. Jones and sentence him to death in violation of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Julius Jones, an African American male, was sentenced to death in the State of Oklahoma for the 1999 shooting-death of Paul Howell, a white male, in Edmond, Oklahoma. On November 2, 2017, one of the twelve jurors who served on the nearly allwhite jury that convicted Mr. Jones of capital murder and sentenced him to death came forward with new information that another juror who sat in judgment of Mr. Jones described the trial as “a waste of time” and expressed his belief that “they should just take the nigger out and shoot him behind the jail.” Under Oklahoma’s post-conviction statute, a death-sentenced prisoner has just sixty days to file a successor post-conviction application based upon newly-discovered evidence. In compliance with this rule, Mr. Jones filed a post-conviction application in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) wherein he argued that newlydiscovered evidence established that racial prejudice influenced the decision of at least one juror to convict and sentence him to death in violation of his rights under the Oklahoma Constitution, as well as under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The OCCA denied Mr. Jones’ successor application on state procedural grounds. The questions presented by this case are the following: 1. Whether newly-discovered evidence establishes that racial prejudice influenced the decision of at least one juror to convict Mr. Jones and sentence him to death in violation of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 2. Whether Oklahoma’s capital post-conviction statute, specifically Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1089(D)(8)(b), and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of the statute in Mr. Jones’ case, denies Mr. Jones an adequate corrective process for the hearing and determination of his newly-available federal constitutional claim in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses? i