Whether the Court of Appeals improperly denied a Certificate of Appealability

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . Thomas Dudney's conviction when actually innocent highlights a national issue: the unacceptably high rate of such convictions, reflected in numerous. exonerations even after years of incarceration — the penal system unnecessarily burdened and lives. of innocents and their families irreparably disrupted. A vital piece of the protection process is lately less accessible because Courts of Appeals more routinely deny Certificates of Appealability, by applying an incorrect standard. . 1. Did the Court of Appeals ignore the requirements set by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning issuance of a Certificate of Appealability ... a. when it and the district court were. presented with factual evidence — affidavits from uncalled witnesses and documentary exculpatory evidence from police records, correspondence,,, : and other documents — as needed to advance Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel who, in not investigating, did not present them to the trial court? . b. when a showing was made of improper (and debatable) analysis and actions by the district court, especially regarding . perjury bolstering identification and counsel performance, : confrontation clause violation, theory of crime's timeline, ineffective assistance of counsel, and so on? ec. when the Motion for Certificate of Appealability made clear : that it presented additional exculpatory evidence, by witness affidavits and argument, that the district court had called : for but not seen? : 2. Did the Court of Appeals err in not. permitting briefing on appeal, when so much evidence put the outcome of the trial in doubt, especially the admission of testimonial hearsay evidence, fundamental to the prosecutions's case, without opportunity for cross~examination, a fundamental sacred right under the Sixth Amendment? S Se |