Whether due process requires more than the arbitrary truncation of pending substantive review by an unnoticed death warrant signed midway through active constitutional litigation, and whether a state's death penalty scheme violating fundamental fairness by providing advance notice only to prosecution and victims' families constitutes a constitutional violation

1. As the dissent below highlights, d oes “due process require [] more” than what has occurred in this death warrant case, including the unnoticed truncation of pending substantive review to accommodate an expedited schedule created by the arbitrary signing of a death warrant midway through active constitutional litigation ? 2. Where a s tate’s death penalty scheme vests in the Governor sole and absolute discretion for the timing, selection, and signing of a death warrant, does it violate fundamental fairness for the prosecution and victims’ family to receive at least 10 days’ advance notice of a 31day death warrant, where the defense is not notified until hours after the warrant is issued ? 3. Can a state opt out of any and all consideration of whether a particular death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment due to the aggregate facets of th at individual’s character and record, including catastrophic mental impairments resulting from his heroic military service ? ii LIST OF DIRECTLY