1. Where a state trial judge summarily rejected,
without a hearing, Petitioner's claim that counsel
was ineffective because he induced Petitioner to
waive her Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
based upon his personal relationship with that
same judge, is Petitioner, on habeas review, entitled
to an evidentiary hearing?

2. Would reasonable jurists find the district court's
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable,
warranting a certificate of appealability, where, in
assessing "actual innocence", the court erroneously
required Petitioner to prove that the offense never
occurred, rather than considering whether it was
"more likely than not that no reasonable juror
would have found petitioner guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt" -- especially where newly
discovered evidence and other facts reveal that the
complainant and a key witness were threatened and
coerced into testifying falsely?

Whether Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her ineffective assistance of counsel claim