Petitioner Demetrius Franklin was convicted of first degree murder based on the testimony of a single identifying witness, Shanti Day. The prosecution failed to disclose the following material and favorable evidence to Franklin: Day's felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor on the same day that Franklin was charged with first degree murder; the investigating officers provided assistance to Day in fighting her felony charge; and an officer from the homicide bureau wrote a letter to the presiding judge in Day's criminal case requesting that the fine levied against her be dropped.

But when presented with this evidence, the state court failed to perform the proper analysis this Court required in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and the district court held that even if the prosecution should have disclosed the evidence regarding the only identifying witness, Franklin had not shown that the evidence was material. The Ninth Circuit then summarily denied even a certificate of appealability ("COA"), effectively deeming these decisions "not even debatable." Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 116 (2017).

The question presented is thus: did the Ninth Circuit's summary denial of a COA here so clearly misapply Buck's modest standard for granting a COA as to call for reversal and remand?

Did the Ninth Circuit's summary denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) so clearly misapply Buck's standard for granting a COA as to call for reversal and remand?