How to reconcile 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) in capital cases

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Capital Case The lower courts are split and confused about how to reconcile the seemingly contradictory statutory language in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1). This death penalty case provides the perfect procedural vehicle to settle the split and provide clarity. The Questions Presented are: 1. Where a state trial court resolves disputed issues of material fact without an evidentiary hearing and ignores relevant expert opinion, is the state court’s decision an unreasaonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)? 2. Is a diligent capital habeas petitioner entitled to the appointment of experts and an evidentiary hearing in federal court to overcome the presumption of correctness of state court fact-findings, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), where the state court denied a well-pleaded request for experts and an evidentiary hearing and then resolved disputed issues of material fact by ignoring evidence of Petitioner’s “borderline mental retardation,” “psychosis,” and “possible organic brain damage?” PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS AND