QUESTION I:
In Brady v. Maryland, this Court announced that it violates due process when
the prosecution fails to dis close material information favorable to the accused. 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1.963). The question presented is: whether under Brady
and its progeny, could reasonable jurist debate whether the prosecution team's
intentional nondisclosure of Petitioner's requested 911 audio recordings requires that his convictions be set asideor that remand is necessary for the
issuance of a COA.

QUESTION II:
In Strickland v. Washington, this Court recognized the Sixth Amendment right
to counsel exists and is needed in order to protect the fundamental right to
a fair trial. 466 U.S. 668, 684 (1984). The question presented is: whether
under Strickland and its progeny, could reasonable jurist debate if initially
retained, pretrial counsel was ineffectie for failing to use any legal means
other than basic discovery to obtain Petitioner's 911 audio recordings that
Petitioner made counsel aware of when he was retained, implored counsel to
obtain said recordings and that were critical to his defense; and, 'if such ineffectiveness requires Petitioner's convictions to be set aside or a remand
for a COA to issue

QUESTION III:
In Crawford v. Washington, this Court announced- that where testimonial evidence is at issue, the Sixth Amendment demands unavailability, a prior opportunity for cross-examination, or plainly, confrontation of one's accusers.
541 U.S. 36, 37-38 (2004). The question presented is: whether under Crawford
and. its progeny, could reasonable jurist debate whether the expert medical
examiner's hearsay testimony, from a Detroit Police Fatal Squad report , that
was-compiled from unnamed witnesses' statements on the ultimate issue of
intent., violated Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation an if
such violation requires Petitioner's convictions to,be set aside or a remand is necessary for a COA.

QUESTION IV:
In Strickland v. Washington, this Court recognized the Sixth Amendment right
to counsel exists and is needed in order to protect the fundamental right to
a fair trial. 466 U.S. 668, 684 (1984). The question 'presented is: whether
under Strickland and its progeny, could reasonable jurist debate-whether trial
counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object and request a
curative instruction to the, obvious, 'highly prejudicial hearsay testimony of
the expert medical examiner that came from a document prepared by the Detroit
Police Fatal S.quad,and..wâ's: compiled from unnamed witnesses statements; and,-.
does such ineffectiveness; require Petitioner's convictions to be set aside or
a remand is necessary fQr a COA.

QUESTION V:
In Evitts v. Lucey, this Court announced that nominal representation on an
appeal of right, like nominal representation at trial, do not suffice to
render the proceedings constitutionally adequate. 469 U. S. 387, 396 (1985).
The question presented is: whether under Evitts and its progeny, could reasonable jurist debate whether appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective

whether-under-brady-and-its-progeny-the-prosecution's-intentional-nondisclosure-of-petitioner's-requested-911-audio-recordings-requires-his-convictions-to-be-set-aside-or-a-remand-for-coa