Whether the 'clearly established Federal law' provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act renders state court decisions categorically exempt from habeas review for unreasonableness

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the “clearly established Federal law” provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act renders state court decisions categorically exempt from habeas review for unreasonableness where this Court has articulated general constitutional standards applicable to the petitioner’s claim but has not previously decided a case where the facts were closely related or similar to the facts underlying the petitioner’s claim. 2. Whether reasonable jurists could debate, for the purpose of deciding if a capital habeas petitioner should be permitted to appeal the question, that a State violates the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment when it deems sufficient to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty the fact that a murder victim did not “become immediately unconscious” when the fatal blows were delivered and therefore consciously endured pain caused by the fatal blows before expiring. ii