Whether a Court of Appeal's decision that failed to provide a reasoned justification for denying a Certificate of Appealability, but rather stated only a conclusion that a district court's denial of a habeas petition was neither debatable nor wrong, violated the standards established by 28 U.S.C. §2253 (c) (2), and the requirements established by this Court for implementing that statute, where a petitioner makes a substantial showing that the retroactive application to his case of an alteration in a state's criminal law that eliminated an element of the crime charged and lowered the prosecution's burden of proof, violated Due Process.

Whether a Court of Appeal's decision that failed to provide a reasoned justification for denying a Certificate of Appealability, but rather stated only a conclusion that a district court's denial of a habeas petition was neither debatable nor wrong, violated the standards established by 28 U.S.C. §2253 (c) (2), and the requirements established by this Court for implementing that statute, where a petitioner makes a substantial showing that the retroactive application to his case of an alteration in a state's criminal law that eliminated an element of the crime charged and lowered the prosecution's burden of proof, violated Due Process