Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Petitioner due process by refusing to provide expert mental health assistance sufficiently independent of the prosecution and available to the defense

In Ake v. Oklahoma , 470 U.S. 68 (1985), this Court clearly established that the State must provide indigent criminal defendants whose mental condition will be an issue at trial with “access to a mental health expert who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent from the prosecution to effectively ‘assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.’” McWilliams v. Dunn, 582 U.S. 183, 186 (2017) (quoting Ake , 470 U.S. at 83). Petitioner made the requisite showing under Ake that his mental health would be an issue at his capital sentencing proceeding. But the trial court afforded Petitioner only an examination by a neutral state -employed psychiatrist, who provided his report to the prosecution, was willing to testify for the prosecution, and did not assist Petitioner in any way in the evaluation, preparation, and presentation of his defense. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court, in conflict with this Court’s decisions in Ake and McWilliams (but consistent with that court’s prior decisions refusing to enforce Ake according to its terms) denied Petitioner due process by refusing to provide expert mental health assistance sufficiently independent of the prosecution and available to the defense to assist him in developing and presenting his sentencing mitigation case, and in rebutting the State’s case against him . 2. Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Cruz v. Arizona, 598 U.S. 17 (2023), and in disregard of the supremacy ii of federal law, departed from its longstanding interpretation of the intervening -law exception to the State’s bar on successive habeas petitions to deny Petitioner the benefit of this Court’s clarification of Ake in McWilliams.