Whether a federal petition raising a Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 348 (1980) claim is 'second or successive' under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)

QUESTION PRESENTED An individual who was not qualified to serve under Missouri law sentenced Michael Tisius to death. This juror was, and is still, illiterate. His participation as a juror violated Mo. Rev. Stat. § 494.425, which automatically disqualifies individuals who cannot “read” from jury service. The juror concealed his illiteracy from the sentencing court by remaining silent to a direct question posed in voir dire regarding literacy. Furthermore, the state assisted the juror in concealing his illiteracy and disqualification by reading him the juror qualification form and filling in the juror’s answers for him. In violation of state law, the state improperly destroyed those forms. The state concealed the fact that the juror had disclosed he could not read until the juror finally disclosed the state action 13 years later. After Mr. Tisius raised this issue in state habeas, and then in federal court, the district court granted a stay, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated it and dismissed the petition. The case presents the following question: Whether a federal petition raising a Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 348 (1980) claim is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) when (i) an illiterate juror served and rendered a death verdict in violation of law; (ii) the state helped qualify an illiterate juror knowing his statutorily disqualifying status and concealed the assistance: (iii) the juror failed to honestly answer a question on that factor during voir dire and failed to disclose his inability to read to the petitioner until after the conclusion of the petitioner’s initial habeas proceedings in the district court, and (iv) the petitioner’s subsequent state and federal proceedings were his first fair opportunity to present his claim? i