I
Did the Sixth Circuit err when it reversed the district
court's grant of the writ based on ineffective
assistance of counsel during cross-examination when
an element of the charge could be proved only by the
complaining witness, the witness had not established
the element on direct examination, and defense
counsel elicited hearsay that bolstered the state's case on the same element?

II
"[W]here testimonial evidence is at issue. . . the Sixth
Amendment demands what the common law
required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for
cross-examination." Crawford v. Washington, 541
U.S. 36, 68 (2004). "If a 'particular guarantee' of the Sixth Amendment is violated, no substitute procedure
can cure the violation, and no additional showing of prejudice is required, to make the violation complete." Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 663 (2011)
quoting United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S.
140, 146 (2006).

At Petitioner's trial, after identifying the analyst who
did the testing on its witness list, the State without
notice introduced DNA evidence through a substitute
analyst who did not do the testing. Surprised defense
counsel did not object. The state appellate court found the Confrontation Clause issue was not waived and
conducted plain error review. Petitioner challenged
whether the state appellate court denied Petitioner's
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it
found that the Confrontation Clause violation did not
require reversal because Hartman "was not
prejudiced by the admission of the DNA lab report or
the testimony that explained the testing process." The
Sixth Circuit denied a COA on the issue saying the
Confrontation Clause violation was not structural
and "did not have a 'substantial and injurious effect'" on the verdict.

The question presented is whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit imposed an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of
Appealability (COA) standard when it denied
Petitioner a COA on his claim that the Confrontation
Clause violation in his case was not subject to review
for prejudice.

Whether the Sixth Circuit imposed an improper Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard when denying review of a Confrontation Clause violation