Did a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit err in denying Mr. Simonton a Certificate of Appealability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Ground I. Did a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit err in denying Mr. Simonton a Certificate of Appealability by stating that he failed to raise an issue of federal or constitutional substance when the decision of the panel conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue? (Proposed Answer in the Positive) Ground II. Did the Honorable Christopher C. Connor err in denying Mr. Simonton’s Petition for Writ of Habeas . Corpus when Megan Ryland-Tanner committed blatant prosecutorial misconduct when allowing known perjured testimony to be presented by Detective James Grumbine? (Proposed Answer in the Positive) Ground III. Did the Honorable Christopher C. Connor err in denying Mr. Simonton’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, albeit Mr. Simonton presented said claim of weight and sufficiency in vain, when the statutory provision, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3106 underlying such a claim was unconstitutional on its face, as it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant? (Proposed Answer in the Positive) Ground IV. Did the Honorable Christopher C. Connor err in denying Mr. Simonton’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus when Counsel, Attorney Deiderick at the first trial, and Attorney Zimmerer at the second trial failed to call witnesses on Mr. Simonton’s behalf? (Proposed Answer in the Positive) 5