Does trial counsel waive a defendant's right to appellate review of an erroneous ruling on evidence if counsel chooses not to object to the ruling when the law in effect at the time does not require a party to renew an objection if the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1 DOES TRIAL COUNSEL WAIVE A DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO APPELLATE REVIEW OF AN ERRONEOUS RULING ON EVIDENCE IF COUNSEL CHOOSES NOT TO OBJECT TO THE RULING WHEN THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME DOES NOT REQUIRE A PARTY TO RENEW AN OBJECTION IF THE COURT HAS MADE A DEFINITIVE RULING ON THE RECORD ADMITTING OR EXCLUDING EVIDENCE, EITHER AT OR BEFORE TRIAL? iu DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ERR WHEN IT DENIED INGRAM’S CLAIM THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS PREJUDICIALLY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BY FINDING THAT BECAUSE COUNSEL STRATEGICALLY CHOSE NOT TO RENEW HIS OBJECTION TO THE TRIAL COURTS ERRONEOUS RICHARDSON RULING INGRAM WAIVED ANY REVIEW OF THE ERROR IN A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PROCEEDING, THUS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF? i DOES THE CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION RULE APPLY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE FOR REVIEW RULINGS ON EVIDENCE WHEN A DEFINITIVE RULING WAS MADE AT OR BEFORE TRIAL AND DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MISAPPLY THE LAW WHEN IT APPLIED THE CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION RULE TO DETERMINE INGRAM WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL? IV DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COA MOTION COURT ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO ADDRESS INGRAM’S CLAIM THAT APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE TRIAL COURT’S FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF IMPERMISSIBLY INFRINGING UPON INGRAM’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TESTIFY? ii Vv DID THE COURT OF APPEALS COA MOTION COURT ERR WHEN ITS DENIAL OF INGRAM’S GROUND FIVE WAS BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS FACTUAL FINDING THAT WAS PERTINENT TO INGRAM’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM THAT HE WAS. DEPRIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL BEFORE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL WHEN THE COURT GAVE BENEFICIAL STRATEGIC ADVICE TO THE PROSECUTION? iii