I. HAS A PETITIONER SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF A COA WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT AFFORDS
DEFERENCE TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE STATE COURT, YET THE STATE
COURT RELIED ON THE OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE TEST TO FIND THAT THE
ADMISSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY THE DEFENDANT IN VIOUTION OF
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA WAS ERROR, BUT THEN APPLIED THE HARMLESS ERROR
STANDARD TO FIND NO PREJUDICE BASED ON MERELY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OF THE DEFENDANT GUILT?

II. HAS A PETITIONER SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF A COA WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT AFFORDS
DEFERENCE TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE STATE COURT WHICH FOUND NO
PREJUDICE BY THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT'S INVOCATION
OF SILENCE IN VIOUTION OF DOYLE V. OHIO, BUT DID NOT CONSIDER THAT
THERE WERE NUMEROUS DOYLE VIOUTIONS WHICH OCCURRED WITHOUT A
CURATIVE INSTRUCTION BEING GIVEN?

III. HAS A PETITIONER SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF A COA WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT
APPOINT COUNSEL OR HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON A PETITIONER'S CUIM
BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE SHOWING PRIMA FACIE THAT COUNSEL
APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM AT ALL CRITICAL STAGES OF STATE COURT
PROCEEDINGS SUFFERED FROM A CONCURRENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST FALLING
WITHIN CUYLER V. SULLIVAN BY ASSIGNMENT OF TOO MANY CASES, WHICH THE
STATE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD INEVITABLY CREATES THE VERY CONFLICT OF
INTEREST UNDER WHICH COUNSEL LABORED?

Has a petitioner substantially shown the denial of a constitutional right warranting issuance of a COA