conviction and habeas corpus proceedings raises Kareem Stansbury's pressing issues of national importance; Whether, and to what extent the criminal justice system tolerates criminal convictions based off cumulative violations of a pro se defendant's federal constitutional rights.

Specifically, did the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit impose and unduly burdensome certificate of appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court's precedent and deepens a split amongst several Circuits when it denied Mr. Stansbury, who was pro se a COA on his habeas petition and to obtain merits review of his claims that:

(a) delaying his trial for over 21 months without valid justification after asserting his right that prejudiced his defense since his only witness became unavailable to testify at his first trial violated his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.

(b) the trial judge providing the jury during deliberation written instructions on the crimes charged in his absence without his knowledge and refused to conduct an evidentiary hearing violated his rights to a fair trial by impartial jury, to self-representation and the right to be present at all stages of the criminal trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

(c) whether Stansbury's new evidence that was not presented at trial and undermines his identity as the shooter was sufficient to excuse procedural default and obtain review of the merits.

Whether and to what extent the criminal justice system tolerates criminal convictions based off cumulative violations of a pro se defendant's federal constitutional rights