Whether a hearing to withdraw a guilty plea requires an opportunity to be heard to comport with Due Process, whether defense counsel's failure to investigate an alternative confession constitutes ineffective assistance, whether a Court of Appeals can deny a Certificate of Appealability despite reasonable jurist disagreement, and whether a federal habeas hearing is warranted when state court factual development was incomplete

I. Whether a hearing in which a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea, made at his first opportunity and before sentencing, at which he asserts innocence and the failure of counsel to investigate the confession by another person, requires the opportunity for the defendant to be heard in order to comport with Due Process requirements under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? II. Whether the failure of defense counsel to conduct an investigation or to make a reasonable decision not to investigate a confession by another person in a murder case violates essential duties owed to the client and, by forcing the client to plead guilty, created sufficient prejudice to violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to effective counsel? III. Whether a Court of Appeals reviewing an application for a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. §2244 which demonstrates that reasonable jurists might disagree with the district court may deny the issuance of the Certificate on the basis that the Court believes that the Applicant might not prevail on the merits? IV. Whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2), where the failure to fully develop the factual record in the state court is not attributable to the Petitioner, but rather to failures of the state courts, a hearing is warranted on Federal Habeas review? -i