Whether the Kansas Supreme Court failed to consider the prejudicial constitutional errors committed by trial counsel and applied an incorrect standard in violation of the binding principles of stare decisis, contrary to Chapman v. California and Neder v. United States

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Kansas Supreme Court Who Affirmed the Remand Court’s Analysis and Findings on Moyer’s Counsel’s Effectiveness under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828, 283 P.3d 132 (2012) and Held: “Giving Deference to the Lower Court’s Credibility Assessments and Considering the Overwhelming Evidence Against Moyer, We Agree That There Was No Reasonable Probability That the Outcome of the Case Would Have Been Different Had J.T. Testified”, Failed to Consider the Prejudicial Constitutional Errors Committed by Trial Counsel and Applied an Incorrect Standard in Violation of the Binding Principals of Stare Decisis, Contrary to this Court’s Rulings in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87S. Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (Where this Court Admonished Against Giving to Much Emphasis to “Overwhelming Evidence” of Guilt, Stating That Constitutional Errors Affecting the Substantial Rights of the Aggrieved Party Could Not Be Considered to Be Harmless); and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (Where this Court Held: “A Limited Class of Fundamental Constitutional Errors Is So Intrinsically Harmful as to Require Automatic Reversal Without Regard to Their Effect on a Trial’s Outcome. Such Errors Infect the Entire Trial Process and Necessarily Render a Trial Fundamentally Unfair”)?