I. Under its original meaning, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment was interpreted as including disproportionate and arbitrary sentences. Under this Court's precedents, a death sentence should not be selectively, irregularly, or arbitrarily imposed. In this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has selectively, irregularly, and arbitrarily affirmed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Question presented: did the en banc Sixth Circuit violate the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause by selectively, irregularly, and arbitrarily affirming Hodge's capital sentence?

II. Did the en banc Sixth Circuit violate the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because its holding resulted in a disproportionate sentence in comparison to the cases of similarly situated capitally-sentenced prisoners?

III. Did the en banc Sixth Circuit violate this Court's precedents when it affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief based upon a decision in which the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to consider mitigation evidence for any purpose – beyond explaining the crimes – even though the unpresented mitigation may well have been enough to outweigh evidence of a particularly brutal crime?

Did the en banc Sixth Circuit violate the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause by selectively, irregularly, and arbitrarily affirming Hodge's capital sentence?