Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibits a court from changing its previous ruling on the same question later during the course of litigation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED More than four decades ago, this Court held that it is crucial that the jury be allowed to hear evidence of a defendant’s positive adjustment to prison. Despite this clearly established law, Brian Dorsey’s trial counsel did not look for this evidence. Instead, they pled him guilty and then gave a brief presentation about Mr. Dorsey’s struggles with substance abuse in contrast to his character in high school. Post-conviction counsel, likewise, did not present a claim about Mr. Dorsey’s positive adjustment to prison. Both sets of attorneys, however, did place evidence in the state court record about his prison adjustment and still did not recognize that they should make an argument about its significance and how that evidence was sufficient to support a sentence of life instead of death. Against this backdrop in the habeas proceedings, the Eighth Circuit, not surprisingly, found that this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was “substantial” and the court granted a certificate of appealability. The same court ruled against Mr. Dorsey because it found this claim was not “substantial” pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. | (2012). These interconnected questions are presented to this Court: 1. In its order granting a certificate of appealability, the Eighth Circuit ruled in Mr. Dorsey’s case that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was “substantial.” Nonetheless, in its opinion denying relief, the same court held that Mr. Dorsey’s ineffectiveness claim was not “substantial” for purposes of finding cause and prejudice for his procedural default of that claim in state court pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. | (2012). When there has been no intervening change of the facts or law, does the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibit a court from changing its previous ruling on the same question later during the course of litigation? 2. Correctional records — that were presented to the state court — established Mr. Dorsey’s good adjustment to incarceration. In that situation, does an aggravated multiple homicide categorically render harmless trial counsel’s failure to investigate, develop, and present to a capital sentencing jury that evidence of positive prison adjustment? 3. When a claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel can be established based upon the record that has been presented to a state court, can a habeas court hold a hearing concerning post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness to establish cause and prejudice pursuant to Martinez v. Ryan? This Court, in Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718, 1738 (2022), left open the question whether 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2) bars a hearing for this cause-andprejudice determination. i