Was the denial of a COA proper?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Eighth Circuit redefined and amended Congress’s lenient certificate of appealability (COA) standard found in 28 U.S.C.§ 2253 with a more restrictive and onerous one. As a result, the court denied a COA as to any of the 32 grounds in Mr. Tisius’s initial habeas petition, which leads to the following questions: 1. Was the denial of a COA proper when a reasonable jurist could conclude that (1) it was improper for the jury to consider, as a reason for death, evidence of the surviving family members pleas for death sentences, when this Court prohibited such evidence in Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), and Bosse v. Oklahoma, 580 U.S. 1 (2016), and (2) counsel’s failure to object to the victim opinion evidence therefore was deficient performance? 2. Was the denial of a COA proper when a reasonable jurist could conclude that the state court, in finding no conflict of interest due to counsel’s flatfee arrangement of $10,000 apiece for a capital sentencing proceeding, failed to consider what counsel failed to do and instead relied exclusively on counsel’s testimony that the flat fee did not affect their representation? i 3. Was the denial of a COA proper when a reasonable jurist could conclude that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to investigate and present available expert evidence establishing statutory mitigating circumstances that were not otherwise presented to the jury? 4. Do the Eighth Circuit’s pro forma unexplained blanket denials of COAs over previous state court dissents and dissents from federal circuit court judges in capital habeas cases conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and this Court’s decisions in Slack v. McDaniel, 539 U.S. 473 (2000), Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998), and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), by preventing a condemned prisoner from obtaining meaningful appellate review on a first habeas corpus petition? ii