W e G R A N T V a n D u s e n ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d o n a p p e a l in fo rm a p a u p e ri s . 1 S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J AS ON VAN DUS E N, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. M AR TY SI RM ON S, W a r d e n ; DR EW E D M O N D SO N , A t t orneyG ener al of th e S ta te o f

O k la h o m a , R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 6376 ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 6 - 2 9 5 - M) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER B efor e B RI S CO E , EBEL , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t Ja so n V a n D u se n re q u e sts a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) , s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) , thatw oul d enabl e hi m t o appea l the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s d e c isio n d e n y in g h im h a b e a s re lief, se e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , fr o m h is O kl ahoma convi ct i ons forfi r s tdegr ee r ape of a chi l d underfour t een y ear s of age and r ape byi ns trum ent at i on. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, V an D us en fi r s tas s ert s that 1 hi s tr i al att orneyw as i neffect i ve forw ai vi ng the pr el i m i naryhear i ng and for fai l i ng t o invest i gate the case; pr epare adeq uatel yfor tri al ; cal l defe nse w i tnesses, i ncl udi ng the vi ct i m ’ s baby s i t t er , a D epart m entof H um an Servi ces empl oy ee, the- 2 -

vi ct i m ’ s tw el ve- y ear - ol d s i s t er , a t eac her , and J es s i ca D ent on; s eek a ps y chol ogi cal expertt o eval uat e a s oci al w or ker ’ s i nt ervi ew w i th the vi ct i m ; s eek a n e x p e r tt o e v a l u a t e th e r e s u l t s o f s e v e r a l p h y s i c a l e x a mi n a t i o n s o f th e v i c t i m; cal l one of the exa m i ni ng phy s i ci ans as a w i tnes s ; bett ercr os s - exami ne the S tat e’s w itn esse s; m ak e a n o p en ing stat em en t; an d o bject t o the p rose cu tor’s im p ro p e r a rg u m e n ts. V a n D u se n a lso a ss e rts th a t th e p ro se c u to r a c ted im p ro p e rly bym aki ng i nappr opr i at e r emar ks dur i ng voi rdi r e, tr i al , cl os i ng ar gum ent , and s ent enci ng; i ntr oduci ng fal s e t es t i m ony ; i ntr oduci ng fal s e evi dence ; s uppr es s i ng excul pat oryevi dence ; and thr eat eni ng t o char ge the vi ct i m ’ s m otheri f s he di d not t es t i fyagai ns tV an D us en. V an D us en furtheral l eged thatan under s her i ff eave s dr opped on V an D us en’ s m eet i ngs w i th hi s defe ns e att orney ; ther e w as insu ffici en t evid en ce p rese n ted a t tri al t o su p p o rteith er o f V an D u sen ’s co n v ict ion s; th e tri al j u d g e e rred in ref u sing to resp o n d to a q u esti o n fro m juro rs dur i ng thei rdel i ber at i ons ; cumul at i ve err orw arr ant s habea s r el i ef; and V an D us en’ s appel l at e couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o r ai s e thes e ar gum ent s on d ir e c t a p p e a l. V an D us en w i l l be ent i t l ed t o a C O A i f he c an make“a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . H e ca n m ake su ch a sh o w ing b yestab li sh ing that “re aso n ab le j u ri sts co u ld d eb ate w h ethe r (or, forthatm att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to- 3 -

pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483- 84 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons s t at ed i n the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, adopt ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt , w e conc l ude V an D us en has fai l ed to m ak e a n ad eq u ate sh o w ing in this ca se. W e, th ere fo re, D E N Y h is m o ti o n fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge