Whether Donnelly and Caldwell remain good law and, if so, whether the Tenth Circuit erred in applying a fundamental-fairness analysis to reject Petitioner's claim that the prosecutor diminished the capital sentencing jury's sense of responsibility by arguing that a death sentence was preordained by religious edict

QUESTION PRESENTED In Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974), this Court identified two distinct standards of review applicable to claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Where the prosecutorial misconduct constitutes a due process violation, relief is warranted only if the entire proceedings were rendered fundamentally unfair. But where the misconduct implicates a specific constitutional provision, relief may be granted so long as it effectively deprived the defendant of the protections guaranteed by that right. In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), the Court made clear that the latter standard applies to prosecutorial argument that violated the capital defendant’s Eighth Amendment right to a reliable sentencing determination by misleading the jury as to its role. In the wake of Donnelly and Caldwell, the Tenth Circuit, like other circuit courts of appeals, faithfully applied a heightened standard of review to claims that a prosecutor’s remarks in capital sentencing interfered with the jury’s sense of responsibility for imposing death. However, in more recent cases—including this case, in which the prosecutor concluded his closing argument in support of the death penalty by retelling a lengthy story from the Bible—federal circuit courts have eschewed the principles articulated in Donnelly and Caldwell. The question presented is whether Donnelly and Caldwell remain good law and, if so, whether the Tenth Circuit erred in applying a analysis to reject Petitioner’s claim that the prosecutor diminished the capital sentencing jury’s sense of responsibility by arguing that a death sentence was preordained by religious edict. i LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS United States v. Fields, No.03-CR-73-RAW (E.D. Okla. July 22, 2005) (trial) United States v. Fields, No. 05-7128 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2008) (direct appeal) Fields v. United States, No. 08-6504 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Apr. 6, 2009) Fields v. United States, No. 10-CIV-115-RAW (E.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2016) (§ 2255) United States v. Fields, No. 17-7031 (10th Cir. Dec. 30, 2019) (§ 2255 appeal) In re Fields, No. 20-7026 (10th Cir. May 28, 2020) (authorization to file successive § 2255 granted) ii