1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit Mark Morris' continued imprisonment after establishing that constitutional violations resulted in his conviction of crimes he did not commit?

2. Whether this Court should exercise its original habeas jurisdiction where the lower-court procedural bars will otherwise prevent any federal adjudication of Mark Morris' actual innocence, contrary to McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), and the Constitution of the United States.

3. Whether a state-created impediment under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(B), which prevented Mark Morris from obtaining and presenting newly discovered evidence of actual innocence, renders the present habeas application not "second or successive" under §2244(b).

4. Whether the Suspension Clause was violated when the lower courts refused to review Mark Morris' claims raised under the exceptions of La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8(A)(1), art. 930.8(A)(5) and art. 930.8(A)(6) where he presents compelling new evidence of innocence and concealed witness inducements that were previously unavailable due to State interference.

5. Whether Mark Morris was denied due process of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when the State concealed information of the time-of-death that conclusively undermine their timeline for the aggravated kidnapping and second degree murder of Jacqueline Purdue?

6. Whether Mark Morris was denied due process of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when representatives of the government concealed that the possibility of a reward of leniency was being held out to the prosecution's primary witnesses for their favorable testimony against him?

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits continued imprisonment after establishing constitutional violations resulting in wrongful conviction