Whether a state court's merits decision applying a new rule of constitutional law opens up federal review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Bonnell’s habeas petition presents exceptional circumstances that, if left unresolved, will cause disparate interpretations of the federal Constitution across the several states so that the Constitution may mean one thing in Ohio and another thing in other states. If the Sixth Circuit’s holding in this case is correct, then federal courts are barred from reviewing and unifying the states’ individual interpretations of federal constitutional law in instances where the states voluntarily apply new law retroactively without direction from this court to do so. If the Sixth Circuit’s holding is correct, Bonnell may be put to death without any federal court ever reviewing whether the State of Ohio unlawfully infringed upon his federal constitutional rights. The questions presented are: L. Whether a state court’s merits decision applying a new rule of constitutional law, once the state gives said rule broader retroactive effect than Teague requires, opens up federal review of the state court’s application of clearly established federal law? I. Whether the Ohio Supreme Court’s merits denial of Bonnell’s Hurst claim was erroneous insofar as appellate reweighing cannot cure the errors that affected the jury deliberations in Bonnell’s case? i