that although juries must find aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, that standard of proof has not been extended to the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors by a jury. Id. 1. Bar to Relitigating Claims Raised on Appeal A petitioner generally is not permitted to relitigate issues brought on direct appeal in a collateral attack. See Boeckenhaupt, 537 F.2d at 1183. As such, courts may “refuse to reach the merits of a constitutional claim previously raised and rejected on direct appeal.” Withrow, 507 U.S. at 720-21, 113 S.Ct. 1745 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Exceptional circumstances, however, such as an intervening change in the law, may warrant a departure from this law-of-the-case doctrine. See Davis, 417 U.S. at 342-47, 94 S.Ct. 2298 (<HOLDING>); Jones, 178 F.3d at 796 (“It is equally well
holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result holding that when relevant substantive law changed after the petitioners trial and unsuccessful appeal the petitioner could file a  2255 motion for collateral relief based on the intervening change in the law holding premagwood that where a first  2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second  2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under  2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal holding that a  2255 hearing is permitted on an issue previously addressed on direct appeal when there has been an intervening change in the law