IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION'S GANG EXPERT IS AND WAS AT ALL TIMES A POLICE OFFICER ENGAGED IN INVESTIGATING CRIMES WHEN INTERVIEWING ALLEGED GANG MEMBERS, THE HEARSAY RELIED ON FOR HIS OPINION MUST CONSTITUTE "TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, AND ITS ADMISSION AT TRIAL VIOLATED CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON'S HOLDING," THUS, THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY MUST BE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS THE ISSUE IS CLEARLY "DEBATABLE AMONGST JURISTS OF REASON"

POLICE QUESTIONING A DETAINEE ABOUT HIS MEMBERSHIP TO A CRIMINAL STREET GANG, REQUIRES MIRANDA V. ARIZONA WARNINGS. IF THIS WARNING IS NOT GIVEN, ANY RESPONSE OR STATEMENT BY THE SUSPECT CAN NOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT AT TRIAL. HENCE, WHEN PETITIONER MADE SUCH COLORABLE ALLEGATIONS IN THE STATE COURTS, AND DENIED HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THE RECORD, THAT STATE COURT'S DECISION REST UPON UNREASONABLE DETERMINATIONS OF THE FACT IN LIGHT OF THE RECORD, THEREFORE, THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY MUST BE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER PETITIONER WAS IN CUSTODY IS CLEARLY "DEBATABLE AMONGST JURISTS OF REASON"

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COLORABLE ALLEGATIONS THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL: (a) FAILED TO OBJECT TO ELIZABETH HIDAY'S 'INTERPRETATION OF WHAT PETITIONER SAID OR MEANT,' (b) FAILED TO OBJECT TO TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY FROM THE GANG EXPERT WHO WAS A POLICE OFFICER ENGAGED IN INVESTIGATING CRIMES, (c) FAILED TO OBJECT TO ADMISSION OF STATEMENTS MADE DURING POLICE QUESTIONING WITHOUT MIRANDA V. ARIZONA WARNING ABOUT GANG MEMBERSHIP, (d) FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL AND IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER HAD POSSESSED AN UNCONNECTED FIREARM DURING A TRAFFIC STOP (e) FAILED TO OBJECT AND SEEK CLARAFICATION OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS CALCRIM NOS. 358 & 359, (f) THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF EACH DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ERRORS, ALL WORKED TO DENY PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND DUE PROCESS. THE STATE COURT'S DECISION TO DENY HIM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DEVELOP THE FACTS, IS OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE, AND "DEBATABLE AMONGST JURISTS OF REASON."

BECAUSE THE STATE COURTS, AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT COURT BLAMED PETITIONER FOR THE UNDEVELOPED RECORD THAT WOULD SUPPORT HIS CLAIMS, AND SUCH CLAIMS REST LARGELY ON THE RECORD ON THE APPEAL; THUS, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON APPELLATE COUNSEL TO RAISE THE STRONGEST CLAIMS ON DIRECT APPEAL. SO THE STATE COURTS' DECISION WAS BASED ON UNREASONABLE

Whether the prosecution's gang expert's hearsay testimony violated Crawford v. Washington