May a state court dispose of an evidentiarily-supported incompetency to be executed claim under Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman despite finding the condemned competent 20 years ago?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Every day, Mr. Corcoran is tormented by the guards at the Indiana State Prison. The guards use an ultrasound machine they keep somewhere in the prison to send out ultrasonic waves that torture Mr. Corcoran, telling him what to do and inflicting excruciating pain. He suffers from a sleep and speech disorder that makes him involuntarily talk out loud and reveal his innermost thoughts—which led to him refusing the State’s offer of life sentences because they would not sever his vocal cords to prevent this from happening. People retaliate against him when they hear his private thoughts. He can hear them talking about him through the walls of his prison cell. Of course, the ultrasound machine and the sleep and speech disorder are his delusions. But the torture and the disorder have plagued Mr. Corcoran for the better part of three decades. He attested he wants to escape prison and this torture, and recently published a book about it. Testifying experts presented at a competency hearing all found him to be irrational and incompetent with one noting Mr. Corcoran would rather die than reveal his mental illness. This case presents the following questions: 1. May a state court dispose of an incompetency to be executed claim under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), and Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 903 (2007), because the state court found the condemned competent 20 years ago under the Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), and Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (1966)? 2. Does a state court violate the due process principles of Panetti when it relies on evidence to find the condemned competent without providing an adequate means for the condemned to submit psychiatric evidence contextualizing or rebutting that evidence? 3. Can the Seventh Circuit constrain this Court’s holding in Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015), which endorsed that a federal court assessing the weight a state court provided certain evidence may be properly made under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)? ii