Whether the Eighth Circuit's practice of issuing unexplained summary denials of certificates of appealability in capital cases conflicts with 28-U.S.C-2253, Barefoot-v-Estelle, Miller-El-v-Cockrell

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this Missouri capital habeas case, petitioner, Johnny Johnson, raised a multi-faceted claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of trial under Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) in his state post-conviction proceeding and in his habeas corpus petition in the district court below. In denying relief, both the state courts and the district court reviewed each aspect of petitioner’s Wiggins claim in isolation in assessing Strickland performance and prejudice. The district court also denied a certificate of appealability. On appeal, petitioner filed an application for a certificate of appealability in the Eighth Circuit seeking plenary appellate review of his Wiggins claim. Under the Eighth Circuit’s local rules, the application was assigned to a three judge administrative panel. By a two to one vote, the panel majority summarily denied a certificate of appealability without explanation and dismissed the appeal. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly dissented, expressing her view that a certificate should issue to review petitioner’s Wiggins claim. Based on the foregoing facts, this case presents the following questions: 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit’s practice of issuing unexplained summary denials of certificates of appealability in capital cases conflicts with 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and this Court’s decisions in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 889 (1983) and Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2008). 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and this Court’s decision in Barefoot and its progeny require a certificate of appealability to issue when one circuit judge of a court of appeals’ administrative panel tasked with this decision, in dissent, finds that a certificate of appealability should issue. 3. Whether a reviewing court, in assessing trial counsel’s overall performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), should consider the cumulative effect of multiple errors of counsel in determining whether a Sixth Amendment violation occurred. 4. Whether a state court decision that truncated a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffectiveness of counsel in the penalty phase under Wiggins into separate components in assessing deficient performance and prejudice is contrary to clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). il