Has a petitioner substantially shown the denial of a constitutional right warranting issuance of a COA

QUESTIONS | PRESENTED . . I. HAS A PETITIONER SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF A COA WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT AFFORDS DEFERENCE TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE STATE COURT, YET THE STATE COURT RELIED ON THE OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE TEST TO FIND THAT THE ADMISSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY THE DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA V. ARIZONA WAS ERROR, BUT THEN APPLIED THE HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD TO FIND NO PREJUDICE BASED ON MERELY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT GUILT? ; II. HAS A PETITIONER SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF A COA WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT AFFORDS DEFERENCE TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE STATE COURT WHICH FOUND NO PREJUDICE BY THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT'S INVOCATION OF SILENCE IN VIOLATION OF DOYLE V. OHIO, BUT DID NOT CONSIDER THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS DOYLE VIOLATIONS WHICH OCCURRED WITHOUT A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION BEING GIVEN? II. HAS A PETITIONER SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF A COA WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT APPOINT COUNSEL OR HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON A PETITIONER'S CLAIM BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE SHOWING PRIMA FACIE THAT COUNSEL APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM AT ALL CRITICAL STAGES OF STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS SUFFERED FROM A CONCURRENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST FALLING WITHIN CUYLER V. SULLIVAN BY ASSIGNMENT OF TOO MANY CASES, WHICH THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD INEVITABLY CREATES THE VERY CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER WHICH COUNSEL LABORED? i