Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Consistent with the holding in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which held that to prove prejudice on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." . GROUND ONE: Has prejudice been shown where defense counsel fails to investigate potential issues with Petitioner's make and model of handgun being prone to accidental discharge and/or fails to employ an expert firearms examiner other than the State's expert witness? . GROUND TWO: Has prejudice been shown where defense counsel fails to establish that Petitioner was indigent, and request , allocated funds to retain an expert witness under § 600.086.3 R.S.Mo; an inexcusable mistake of law, i.e., an unreasonable failure to understand the resources the state law made available ' to Petitioner? GROUND THREE: Has prejudice been shown where the State ; fails to disclose and release items of evidence, pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R.25.03 and under Brady v. Maryland; irrespective of whether the evidence was suppressed by the State either jwillfully or inadvertently, the State's failure to disclose and (i) release this evidence undermined confidence in the outcome of the trial, in that, said withheld evidence had the potential to alter the jury's assessment of the credibility of a significant prosecution witness? . GROUND FOUR: Has prejudice been shown where the trial ; court has abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial, after a timely objection was made, when the prosecutor _ asked the State's witness (a police officer) whether Petitioner had said anything to him when Petitioner was placed under arrest, because the prosecutor's question improperly suggested to the jury that, if Petitioner's shooting the victim truly had been an accident, then Petitioner would have told the officer immediately that it was an accident? GROUND FIVE: Has prejudice been shown where the trial court . erred and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide Petitioner with the required "auxiliary aids and services" for communication assistance needed under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and in violation of Sections 476.760, . 476.763, and 476.766 R.S.Mo? . GROUND SIX: Has prejudice been shown where defense counsel fails to motion the trial court to suppress Petitioner's alleged post-arrest and pre-Miranda statement that was made in response to Officer Butler's question, that was asked without the required "auxiliary aids and services" certified interpreter for a deaf and/or hearing impaired persone ) ii