Whether McCoy V Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) is a new 'watershed rule

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : 1. Whether McCoy V Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) is a new "watershed rule", akin to Gideon v Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), which falls within the "watershed rule paradigm", because "the effect of 'revoking [counsel's] agency'" before trial (quoting McCoy), is the denial of "the assistance of Counsel" for trial (quoting Gideon). See Alabama v Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) ("Where the inference . . . draw[n] is that it is the sheer importance of ‘the right to counsel’ that is the ‘primacy in the analysis'") (emphasis added). /2,Where every conduct of a non-capital case sand capital case proceedings are different; the prosecutor; defense counsel (their experience and strategies); the judge; the motions filed and not filed; the rulings and orders; the jury (a death qualified jury or a regular jury); the jury questionnaires; the trial; the opening statements; closing statements; and then the level of the sentence that can be imposed. ; Whether it's a "structural error", "affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds" Arizona v Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 (1991), when the grand jury is excluded from authorizing a non-capital case to proceed to trial with capital case proceedings and an enhanced punishment; and both the government and the court "guess" it's what the grand jury "would've authorized." ; . , 3. Whether trial counsel not discovering and not presenting "negative DNA results" and "negative gasoline results" that would've exonerated the defendant at trial, because counsel went against the defendant's objective to maintain and prove the defendant's : innocence at trial, qualify as "exceptional circumstances to warrant the excercise of this Court's discretionary power to issue an original writ of habeas corpus." (quoting S. Ct. R. 20.4(a)). See In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 953 (2009) ("[T]he substantial 'risk' of putting an innocent man to death. . . is sufficiently ‘exceptional’ to warrant utlization of this Court's . . . original habeas jurisdiction." (Stevens, J., concurring, joined by Ginsburg, J., and Breyer, J..).