Was the Petitioner's demonstration, that the State Courts' decision was dependent on their failure to apply the holding in Murphy v. Florida by accepting juror's assurances of impartiality to find the voir dire adequate rather than apply the McDonough Power Equipment holding to find the newspaper juror's prejudice that the voir dire had not been adequate to reveal (contrary to Morgan v. Illinois), sufficient to require de novo review under the Panetti V. Quarterman standard OR was the Petitioner's demonstration sufficient to rebut any presumption that the State Court's decision had silently applied those Supreme Court holdings, thus requiring de novo review under the Johnson v. Williams standard, and was sufficient to require a COA to issue?

Should a Certificate of Appealability have issued for the Petitioner's Double Jeopardy claims under the standard set out in Miller-El. v. Cockeral because "jurists of reason could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."

Should a Certificate of Appealability have issued for the question of whether the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits Nebraska Courts. from adjudicating Second Degree Murder cases when Nebraska's Second Degree Murder statute (that provides trial courts with the power to impose a judgment) is facially unconstitutional.because it is too vague to prevent its arbitrary enforcement?

Was the Petitioner's demonstration sufficient to require de novo review under the Panetti v. Quarterman standard or the Johnson v. Williams standard, and was it sufficient to require a COA to issue?