Did the Court of Appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability on Petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to refute the aiding-and-abetting theory of liability that Mr. Harris' conviction is possibly based upon?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Did the Court of Appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability on Petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to refute the aiding and abettting theory of liability that Mr. Harris conviction is possibly based upon? 2) This claim raises a pressing issue of national importance: Whether "legally inconsistent" verdicts are in violation and run contrary to the United States Constitution, Also whether Mr. Harris trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the legally inconsistent verdicts in violation of Maryland's State law, when Federal law permits which verdicts. then the issue is ineffective assistance, a constitutional claim alleging viclation of the Sixth Amendment right ta effective counsel? 3) Did the Court of Appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability on Petitioner's cumulative effect claim under : Strickland v. Washington? a. Whether trial was ineffective by failing to object to lay witness providing expert opinion testimony about the operation of cell phone techology and cell tower location. b. Whether trial counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to request instruction to inform the jury witness invoked their Fifth Amendment Privilege. ct. Whether trial counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to object to the legally inconsistent verdicts rendered? . i