Whether the presumption of correctness under § 2254(e)(1) requires a determination on a factual issue by a state court or whether merely presenting a factual issue to a state court is sufficient

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Section 2254(e)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (‘“AEDPA”) requires federal courts to presume that state court factual findings are correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. After AEDPA was adopted, this Court held in House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 539 (2006), and McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 396-97 (2013), that the Schlup actual innocence gateway survived the passage of AEDPA when a first federal habeas petition is brought seeking consideration of defaulted claims based on a showing of actual innocence. This petition presents three questions related to § 2254(e)(1) and this Court’s actual innocence gateway precedent: 1. Whether the presumption of correctness under § 2254(e)(1) requires a determination on a factual issue by a state court or whether merely presenting a factual issue to a state court is sufficient. 2. Whether a federal court should accord a state court decision a presumption of correctness under § 2254(e)(1) where a due process violation denied the state court an effective opportunity to hear the underlying factual issue. 3. Whether deference under § 2254(e)(1) is owed by a federal court considering the Schlup actual innocence gateway to state court findings of fact given that § 2254(e)(1) heightens the burden on petitioner to overcome the state court findings by clear and convincing evidence when the Schlup gateway standard requires only a preponderance. i