Question No. 1 Should Mr. Harris be permitted to raise his claims of prosecutorial
misconduct based on newly obtained and never before presented evidence to a
court of proper jurisdiction based on the gateway claim of innocence presented
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that was rejected procedurally, because
Mr. Harris has presented a subsequent habeas petition rather than a successive
petition ?

Question No. 2 Is Mr. Harris entitled to an evidentiary hearing and a determination of
his federal claims made to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that involve
actual innocence and the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right
in the State court in order to develop the factual basis of his claims for
relief prior to any review by the federal courts ?

Question No. 3 Whether transfer to the District Court for the Eastern District of California
pursuant to this Court's original jurisdiction is warranted in this extraordinary
case where petitioner has presented a substantial case for innocence, the Courts
below have refused to consider petitioner 's newly discovered and presented
evidence even though petitioner specifically raised a claim of Actual Innocence -
Miscarriage of Justice as a ground for relief in order to properly state a claim
for relief under both House v. Bell and Herrera v. Collins , and no court has held
an evidentiary hearing in order to examine his newly discovered and freshly
presented evidence of actual innocence ?

Question No. 4 Is petitioner entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the District Court
because he has made the compelling showing of actual innocence necessary to
stating a gateway claim of actual innocence and because petitioner has presented
newly discovered exculpatory evidence to the courts below, and because the State
courts have refused to consider the newly discovered and freshly presented
evidence while instead asserting procedural default findings of successiveness
despite the subsequent nature of petitioner 's claims for relief ?

Question No. 5 Does petitioner 's showing of actual innocence under House v. Bell align
sufficiently with his Napue claims to permit a court of proper jurisdiction to
find that a miscarriage of justice has occurred notwithstanding any procedural
default asserted by the State court ?

Question No. 6 (a) What constitutes'"new evidence" in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(2)(B)
and 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(2)(B) and what constitutes a "truly persuasive showing
of actual innocence" when "new evidence" is used to demonstrate actual innocence ?

(b) Does the United States Constitution require habeas relief if
petitioner makes a persuasive demonstration of actual
innocence ?

Whether a subsequent habeas petition raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct and actual innocence should be permitted to proceed despite procedural default when new exculpatory evidence exists