Ineffective assistance of counsel

QUESTION PRESENTED . | After trial, Mr. Boatman requested different counsel for the purpose of fil. ing a motion for new trial so as to raise the issues presented earlier, with expert assistance, rather than later with no assistance. Sentencing counsel refused. This case thus presents the following question: . , an “5. Was sentencing counsel ineffective in failing to file a motion for new trial: and did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that this was not prejudicial? ~ : . CUMULATIVE ERROR QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. Boatman contends that at every phase of his trial a prejudicial error was committed. Trial counsel was negligant in failing to conduct pretrial investigation, in developing and presenting evidence to mitigate and support evidence as well ; as supporting and requesting necessary jury instructions. The prosecutors miscon. duct was so great it prejudiced Mr.Boatman and over-convicted him as evidenced by t ' . ) \\ yr : os ” te California Appellate Court (See partially published opinion, infra; Boatman, ( _ supra; Dist. Ct. Lodg. 7) reducing Mr. Boatman's first degree murder to second : due to insufficiency of evidence leaving the remaining conviction unfair. The sentencing counsel deprived Boatman of his rights to have proper investigation and place all of this on record through expert testimony on a motion for new trial. . i This case thus presents the following question: oe 6.Did the Ninth Circuit err in deferring to the lower courts finding that / Mr. Boatman was not prejudiced by the cumulative error, in light of the record as a whole, that the errors did not severely umdermine the confidence in the judgement ; and that the errors did not violate Boatman's right to effective assistance, fair trial, and due process? SO co M1 | . e/a C. oa « ? e ,