Whether the Eighth Circuit's pro forma practice of issuing unexplained blanket denials of COAs in capital habeas cases conflicts with 28 U.S.C. §2258 and Supreme Court precedent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A disturbing trend is developing in capital cases in federal courts in Missouri regarding the pro forma denial of certificates of appealability (“COA”). In Petitioner's case, both the District Court and the Eighth Circuit summarily denied Petitioner a COA. It has been over an entire calendar year since the Eighth Circuit has granted a COA in a capital case. This pro forma practice presents the following questions: 1. Does the Eighth Circuit’s pro forma practice of issuing unexplained blanket denials of COAs in capital habeas cases conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and this Court’s decisions in Slack v. McDaniel, 539 U.S. 473 (2000), Miller-E] v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322 (2003), and Barefoot vy. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), by preventing a condemned prisoner from obtaining meaningful appellate review of a first habeas petition? 2. Whether the summary denial of a COA was proper as it pertains to Petitioner’s plain violation of the Confrontation Clause as interpreted by this Court in Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), when the state court allowed admission of prior testimonial hearsay statements without satisfying Gi/e? intent requirements to establish admissibility under the Sixth Amendment? i