Whether a murder conviction and death sentence based on now recognized debunked unscientific evidence violates a petitioner's constitutional rights to fair trial and due process of law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Bite-mark comparison evidence was the foundation of the State’s case that convicted Petitioner Danny Lee Hill of murder and sentenced him to death. The State of Ohio now acknowledges this evidence has been debunked as unscientific, and would be inadmissible in any current trial. The State of Ohio failed to grant Mr. Hill a new trial despite disqualification of and patent unreliability of this evidence. The question for this Court to address is whether a murder conviction and death sentence based on now recognized debunked unscientific evidence violates a petitioner’s constitutional rights to fair trial and due process of law? ii List of All