1. FOR PURPOSES OF RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HAS A "SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" IN THIS CASE WHEN AN IDENTIFIER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AEDPA AND BRISCOE V. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), PURSUANT TO NEIL V. BIGGERS, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), IS A "PRIOR DESCRIPTION" AN "ELEMENTAL FACT" IN THE RELIABILITY DETERMINATION OF SUGGESTIVE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES?

2. WAS DIEHL DENIED COUNSEL AT A CRITICAL STAGE WHERE THE TRIAL COURT RESPONDS TO A SUBSTANTIVE JURY NOTE DURING DELIBERATIONS AND WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE PARTIES?

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the state courts denied his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence without a meaningful evidentiary hearing