In light of this Court's recent grant of certiorari in Case v. Montana to resolve the question of whether the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement requires probable cause, does an uncorroborated anonymous 911 call from a payphone regarding a domestic dispute and an officer's 'gut feeling' permit the warrantless entry and search of a home?; Is a defendant's request to represent himself at trial equivocal because it is made in the alternative to a request for the appointment of new counsel?; Given that 'a lie is a lie, no matter what its subject,' Glossip v. Oklahoma, 145 S. Ct. 612, 628 (2025) (internal quotation omitted), could reasonable jurists debate whether a medical examiner's false testimony as to the cause of death constitutes a due process violation?

1. In light of this Court’s recent grant of certiorari in Case v. Montana to resolve the question of whether the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement requires probable cause, d oes an uncorroborated anonymous 911 call from a payphone regarding a domestic dispute and an officer’s “gut feeling” permit the warrantless entry and search of a home? 2. Is a defendant’s request to represent himself at trial equivocal because it is made in the alternative to a request for the appointment of new counsel ? 3. Given that “a lie is a lie, no matter what its subject,” Glossip v. Oklahoma, 145 S. Ct. 612, 628 (2025) (internal quotation omitted), could reasonable jurists debate whether a medical examiner’s false testimony as to the cause of death constitutes a due process violation?