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

Petitioner Michael Jay Harris presents six exceptionally important questions which have divided the circuit courts below. Each and all of these questions have relevance to Mr. Harris and other similarly situated persons because they involve the balancing of limited judicial resources and a State’s right to finality in its convictions, with the constitutional imperative that the Courts do all things law and justice require in its truth-seeking function. 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 ?