Whether the conceded admission of gang hearsay evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause was prejudicial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ' As the State conceded, Petitioner Adrian Alaniz heroically came to the aid of, and saved the lives of, his two friends who were the victims of an unprovoked attack with deadly weapons by two Nortefio gang member assailants—Noe Acevedo and Ricky Jacques. Petitioner and his Surefo friends ran at Jacques and Acevedo, and caused them to abandon their attack and run from the park. Petitioner and his Surefio friends continued chasing the attackers for 15 seconds to prevent them from returning to attack again. But, within 15 seconds, Jacques and Acevedo did turn back towards Petitioner and his friends and raised their weapons to attack Petitioner and his friends, again. Only when Jacques and Acevedo turned to attack with weapons again, did Petitioner shoot Jacques twice, killing Jacques. Despite the State’s concession that the shooting was justified 15 seconds earlier in the park, the State remarkably sought and obtained a conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The state courts found numerous federal constitutional errors to be harmless and affirmed. The District Court denied relief. A Certificate of Appealability has been denied. IL Where the evidence tended to favor a verdict of justifiable homicide or a lesser verdict of manslaughter, has Petitioner presented a “debatable” issue meriting a Certificate of Appealability, whether the conceded admission of gang hearsay evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause was prejudicial? Il. Where the evidence tended to favor a verdict of justifiable homicide i or a lesser verdict of manslaughter, has Petitioner presented a “debatable” issue meriting a Certificate of Appealability, where the state court unreasonably denied his claim that the prosecutor’s multiple arguments commenting on Petitioner’s silent failure to present any testimony from himself or others stating that Petitioner stated that he believed he was acting in defense of self or others, violated his federal constitutional rights per Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959)? III. Where the evidence tended to favor a verdict of justifiable homicide or a lesser verdict of manslaughter, has Petitioner presented a “debatable” issue meriting a Certificate of Appealability, where the state court unreasonably denied his claim that Petitioner’s Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense were violated by the prosecutor’s repeated arguments that Petitioner’s decision made earlier in the day to carry a firearm for protection proved that he had premeditated the killing? ii