Whether Panetti creates a heightened standard of due process compared to Ford's controlling holding, and whether due process requires additional procedures in competency-to-be-executed proceedings when cross-examination is functionally foreclosed

In Ford v. Wainwright , Justice Powell’s controlling holding instructed that upon a substantial threshold showing of insanity, due process entitles a deathsentenced individual to a fundamentally f air hearing at which he is accorded an “opportunity to be heard” on the issue of his incompetency to be executed . 477 U.S. 399, 424, 426 (1986). Fairness required an opportunity for the prisoner’s counsel to provide to an “impartial” officer “evidence and argument …including expert psychiatric evidence that may differ from the State’s own psychiatric examination.” Id. at 4 27. Justice Powell did not set forth “the precise limits that due process imposes in this area .” Id. However, he equated fundamental fairness in the competency -to-beexecuted context with a factfinding procedure that is “adequate for reaching reasonably correct results” and “ascertainment of the truth[.]” Id . at 424. This Court’s subsequent precedent left open the question of “whether other procedures, such as the opportunity for discovery or for the cross -examination of witnesses, would in some cases be required under the Due Process Clause.” Panetti v. Quarterman , 551 U.S. 930, 952 (2007). The questions presented in this petition are: 1. Where this Court’s precedent is clear that procedural due process is flexible and its protections are dependent upon time and circumstances, and where Panetti clarifies that competency -to-be-executed claims do not ripen until the signing of a warrant, does Panetti create a heightened standard of due process as compared to Justice Powell’s controlling holding in Ford ? 2. Does due process ever require additional opportunities or procedures in competency -to-be-executed proceedings than those specified in Ford and Panetti ? 3. When cross -examination of witnesses is functionally foreclosed by non disclosure of materials —including supporting documents upon which State experts relied in forming an opinion about the death -sentenced individual’s competency to be executed, notes reflecting discrepancies in the expert s’ testimony, and the foreclosure of presenting testimony related to bias of one of the experts who jointly evaluated, formed, and submitted evidence to the court , and an adverse opinion due to non -appearance —has due process and fundamental fairness been denied pursuant to Ford and Panetti ? ii LIST OF DIRECTLY