Whether the lower court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for violation of their First Amendment rights

ESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW CAPITAL CASE UESTION ONE UNDER THE FEDERAL DEATH ACT, “MUST” JURORS RETURN A DEATH SENTENCE IF PROVEN AGGRAVATING FACTORS SUFFICIENTLY OUTWEIGH PROVEN MITIGATING FACTORS, AS MANDATED BY THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, AND AS INSTRUCTED IN THIS CASE, OR IS THE OPPOSITE TRUE, THAT JURORS ARE NEVER REQUIRED TO RECOMMEND A DEATH SENTENCE REGARDLESS OF FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS, AS PERSISTENTLY INSTRUCTED BY WELL OVER ONE HUNDRED DISTRICT COURTS OUTSIDE THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, INLANGUAGE CITED WITH APPROVAL BY THIS COURT? QUESTION TWO IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN STRINGER v. BLACK, COUPLED WITH THE DICTATES OF THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY ACT AND THE PENALTY PHASE JURY CHARGE GIVEN IN THIS CASE, DID THE JURY’S REPORT OF “100% CERTAINTY” ABOUT INABILITY TO MAKE A UNANIMOUS DECISION ABOUT PUNISHMENT FOR MR. HALL AMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION THAT THE DEATH PENALTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, AND DID THE DISTRICT COURT’S SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AFTER THAT JURY REPORT UNLAWFULLY COERCE THE JURY INTO RETURNING A DEATH SENTENCE? i