Whether transfer to the District Court for a hearing pursuant to this Court's original habeas jurisdiction is warranted in this exceptional non-capital case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mr. Smith’s habeas petition presents exceptional circumstances that, by all accounts, appear to be a case of first impression, and requires interpretation of a statutory mandate that directly conflicts with this Court’s prior decisions defining acquittals and the finality of a jury’s verdict. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether transfer to the District Court for a hearing pursuant to this Court’s original habeas jurisdiction is warranted in this exceptional non-capital case where the petitioner submitted unrefuted evidence that he was acquitted of every element of every offence for which he stood trial, the lower federal court refused to address his innocence in his first habeas petition, and no State of Ohio or federal district court, or federal court of appeals has addressed the issue thereafter? 2. When federal courts fail to address the not guilty verdicts that are contained in the state record in petitioner’s first habeas petition, does the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“ AEDPA’’) preclude a stand-alone innocence claim raised for the first time in a successive petition based on the same evidence the federal court failed to review in the first petition?