Cidney Bowdean Ingram v. Fredeane Artis, Warden

I. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (COA) SHOULD BE ISSUED WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT DEFINED THE PORCH, CONSISTENT WITH MICHIGAN LAW, AS PART OF THE HOME FROM WHICH MR. INGRAM HAD NO DUTY TO RETREAT, DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, OR DUE PROCESS; REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THIS HOLDING TO BE DEBATABLE, OR WOULD FIND THAT THIS ISSUE DESERVES ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROCEED FURTHER. II. A COA SHOULD BE ISSUED WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER MR. INGRAM HAD A DUTY TO RETREAT; AND FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT, IN LIGHT OF THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, MR. INGRAM HAD NO DUTY TO RETREAT; DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, OR DUE PROCESS. REASONABLE JURISTS WOULD FIND THESE HOLDINGS TO BE DEBATABLE, OR WOULD FIND THAT THESE ISSUES DESERVE ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROCEED FURTHER.