Does a lower Court's admission that a aiding and abetting jury instruction was erroneous in light of this Court decision in Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014), mean that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the erroneous instruction, that allowed his client to be convicted under a legally insufficient theory, and is the failure to grant a defendant a new trial, under these circumstances, in direct contrast to this court's decision(s) in Yates v. United States, 77 S. Ct. 1064 (1957) and Griffin v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 466 (1991)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Does a lower Court's admission that a aiding and abetting jury instruction was erroneous in light of this Court decision in Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014), mean that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the erroneous instruction, that allowed his client to be convicted under a legally insufficient theory, and is the failure to grant a defendant a new trial, under these circumstances, in direct contrast to this court's decision(s) in Yates v. United States, 77 S. Ct. 1064 (1957) and Griffin v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 466 (1991). 2. Whether an attorney is ineffective for failing to introduce favorable "shoe : : print" evidence, when the entire theory of defense was one of mistaken identity, and the attorney gave no reason, strategic or otherwise, for the ommission, in direct contrast to this Court's ruling in Strickland v. ; Washington, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984) 3. Dose a court deny a defendant due process and the right to confront witnesses . against him, and is an attorney ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of maps, created from cell-cite data, when the agent that produced those maps was not at trial, not unavailable, and had not previously been cross-examined,. in direct contradiction to this Court's decision in | Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) & Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). : i