Whether cause exists to excuse procedural default when state officials made misleading statements that hindered counsel's compliance with state's procedural rule

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this capital habeas case, the Eighth Circuit decided important questions of federal law in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court and decisions of other Circuits and undermines public confidence in the impartiality of the federal judicial system, necessitating review by this Court: 1. Whether cause to excuse procedural default exists when a state officials made statements that were merely misleading—rather than outright false—that nonetheless hindered counsel’s compliance with state’s procedural rule, and counsel did not know and had no reason to believe that the statements were misleading, rendering the factual basis of his claim not reasonably available. 2. Whether a capital trial is fundamentally unfair when a significant part of peremptory strikes is made in secret, outside of the presence of the public, and without knowledge or participation of the defendant; the strikes are made based on gender; and the record is concealed by the court from subsequent counsel. 3. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to end the pattern of sua sponte rulings by the Eighth Circuit denying capital petitioners notice and a meaningful opportunity to dispute the grounds on which the appellate court denies them habeas relief. i