Whether the structural error of service of by biased juror in a capital case, discovered on the eve of execution, presents extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention by this Court through its original jurisdiction, in order to provide a forum for this claim to be heard?

Question Presented | As a young woman, Juror A was the victim of repeated rape and domestic | violence at the hands of her first husband. After this man committed suicide on Christmas day, Juror A “buried” this past. She remarried happily and moved on with her life. When she was called for jury duty in Lee Hall’s capital case, where issues of domestic violence and stalking would be central to the proof of first degree murder, Juror A again “buried” her past and gave false answers to questions posed | in the jury selection process. She was selected to be on the jury. When Mr. Hall | testified about his actions at the time of the offense, she put herself in the victim’s shoes and she “hated” him because her own experiences “flooded back.” Juror A and the other jurors deliberated, found Mr. Hall guilty, and sentenced him to death. After maintaining her silence for many years, Juror A finally spoke about her past and her feelings toward Mr. Hall with his legal team just two months before his execution date. The legal team immediately sought relief in state court. When the state trial courts had dismissed his pleadings, he turned to federal court | arguing that the structural error of a biased juror in a capital case merited habeas review. However, because he could not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. | 2244(b)(2)(B)Gi), he has not been allowed to present his claims in federal court. | The question now presented is: | 1. Whether the structural error of service of by biased juror in a | capital case, discovered on the eve of execution, presents extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention by this Court through its original jurisdiction, in order to provide a | forum for this claim to be heard? | | |