TEENAGER CHARLES NASH WAS SUBJECT TO TALK FIRST INTERROGATION TACTICS YET DEFENSE COUNSEL SOUGHT SUPPRESSION OF HIS SIATEMENT ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS HAVING INVOKF.D HIS RICH 1 10 COIJNSLL THE SIXTH H CIRCUIT, DISI RIC I AND SI A IT . COURTS FAULTED NASH FOR HAVING FAILED TO KNOW AN ISSUE EXISTED RELATIVE A TALK FIRST CHALLENGE. ON RECORD EVIDENCE COMMANDING CONTRARY, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ADDITIONALLY RAISED IHE I3AR FOR A COA; AND FURTHER DENIES A COA WHERE POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL FAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL CLAIM S WITH ARGUMENT-PROOF.

CAN A POST-CONVICTION ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO ARGUE OR PRESENT PROOF IN SUPPORT OF RAISED SUBSTANTIAL IATC CLAIMS, CONSTITUTE CAUSE TO EXCUSE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT OF SUCH CLAIM UNDER MAR JINLZ AND TREVINO, AND AT LEAST BE COA DEBATABLE UNDER THE CONCURRENCE IN GJ4LLOW V COOPER?

WHERE TENNESSEE LAW ONLY REQUIRED COUNSEL'S PROMISED DEFENSE OF DURESS/NECESSITY TO BE FAIRLY RAISED BY THE PROOF, AND NOT AFFIRMATIVELY PROVEN BY THE DEFENSE IN ORDER FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION THEREON, DID THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN TURN HOLD MR. NASH TO A HIGHER COA BURDEN AS IT RELATES TO COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVENESS IN HAVING PROMISED YET FAILED TO PROPERLY RAISE THE BASICS THEREOF, AND/OR SEEK A JURY INSTRUCTION THEREON?

WHERE THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HAS UPHELD A STATE COURT SIR] cKLAND FINDING THAT ESSENTIALLY SHIFTS THE BURDEN TO THE PETITIONER TO HAVE KNOWN THE LAW AND HENCE INFORMED COUNSEL OF WHAT WAS AN ISSUE VERSUS COUNSEL HAVING GLEANED INFERENCES FROM THE RECORD THAT SUPPORTED AN ISSUE AND THUS INQUIRED OF PETITIONER FACTS RELATIVE THERETO, IS SUPREME COURT REVIEW WARRANTED?

Whether a post-conviction attorney's failure to argue or present proof in support of raised substantial ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims can constitute cause to excuse procedural default under Martinez and Trevino