Whether a court evaluating the reasonableness of trial counsel's failure to make a meritorious challenge under the Sixth Amendment may disregard evidence that it was the prevailing professional norm to challenge such evidence

QUESTION PRESENTED Counsel failed to object to prejudicial testimony. Specifically, the State’s expert’s testimony vouched for the alleged victim’s allegations of abuse in a criminal case that amounted to a credibility contest between the accused and the accuser because there was no physical evidence of abuse. Record evidence demonstrated: e Challenges to such testimony were available under existing law; e Competent attorneys routinely challenged this type of testimony because it was expected that the Oregon Supreme Court would take up the issue; and e The Oregon Supreme Court granted relief on such a challenge while Petitioner’s case was on appeal. May a court evaluating the reasonableness of trial counsel’s failure to make this meritorious challenge under the Sixth Amendment effectively disregard evidence that it was the prevailing professional norm to challenge such evidence?