Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an alibi defense at trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW BID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SANCTION DECISONS OF THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AND FEDERAL BISTRICT COURT THAT CONFLICT WITH RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OTHER DECISIONS OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE YHEN INVESTIGATING AN ALIBI DEFENSE AT TRIAL? \S Z Fruewoduos gDpUeUDpuNn7 m FP ZeyuNOD JO vdUDZVI"9D Vy}? FO VezUDYONE FoVOFRNZIz.TUOD Dy) 4 "OZ§ ‘2 FYB 'E96) BUC {hs ov~ezep Fry vor yerunos Jo aovozy7¢9o "hl eany FaDYY peyTIID vyz ‘wo7RTMEVONd JoUPW?VD voce Uf? ], TPOUP VOZOZE VOTZNIPZTUOD UOHPYOTY) BYR ‘UOTPNZPPVUCD GORDES PERrU; BYz OF YOFTUTS "7 3SVD FHL 10 LNGUZLYLS . aioe JO vvaovd enp ynoy7z?M ‘fyvedord vo ‘Hyvegry ‘efr7 Go voyved fuo varydap 27039 fun g70Yy VOfy], spvod puDaezeuV . : UP FOPPACUE UOPZTNFPFLUOD FOROZS POFPUT) By} OF Freupreuy yRUedzVTIOY zy/ gDIvegep ory vo7 yovuno> fo wounzeTYTY BY7 aany 072 puD ‘voan, V7PY Ur YaYTeUpIM Buyurnzyo voy vvevoud Auvoggnedwoo vavy 03 fury zrUpOin yeyoeuz?m yp YR?a pozuovzuoos ay 07 fuerzOVMVOD ey} fo e9nDD pun vuTTzDU Vy2 Zo pouvozuy oy ih! 07 pySrv 247 fofuve ze7LYs PeynDDD wy} ‘vUOT_NIeVOVs BuUrUTYD AFD UT, ¢pYDd PURAEZOV Ur FOPTAOUY UOTZNZPZVUOD YO}ROZS PozRrUy] Vy? OF FUueupueuy YRATS 2Yy/ QZATOANT SNOISTAO¥d FYOLNLYLS CNY TYUNOTLTLILSNOD "CLIPSELS D'S" 82 07 JUONEUNE PoyoauT v7 ZUNE) 9743 Jo VOPZIzPITUTF By, ~ : “pegr7 vom bupyoeyey vox vorzrzed o4 by xrpueddy "6 j0¢ ‘6 AD vom eenD BY7 , PEPTIC FPTOVID YPXTS yp Ves VeDOdly FO FUND YezO}ZS PERTU] By? YOrYyr VO e2Up oYy NOILIIGSIUUT . peyvodeven C7 PUD UOFZ?PzOY BY} OF G xFpUEeddy 7U vupeden vzooudy 7° pun0y ubbryory) oy? Jo UorUzZdO ays poyzvodevun 77 puY 7 xppiaddy 2D vuneddo punoy owoveny webrYoPY) BYR FO vepve ay, “pepvodevun 7 pud UOTz?zEeY BYy7 OF | xPpUadedy BO YuDEUe/n YuNOD 70722070 . ¥ORD2S POPPY By? FO UOPUP Oo BY, KpeZVOdevUN v7 pUM VOTR? FEY BY7 OF Y xPpUEdely Bo FUDOUSD BIMOVID YRXIS Vy} vos Heddy Jo ZuNOD YeRDAS PoRTU] Vyz Jo vorurvo ay, ; HOT2@ SNOINIAO : a YPNOTLILP¢ YOL 1FTUE TUUYOTLYZD 10 LIMA UOL NOTLTL3d of oun criminal justice systen. The assistance of a competent attorney ts. essential fecause it provides the means thaough which the other rights of the accused are secured. Consequently, without counsel's assistance, the right to a trial would mean Little. See Unéted States vu Cronica, 466 US 648,653 (7984)., Notahle federal and flichigan jurists have long recognized the importance of the night to the assistance of counsel, Justice Sutherland, in his opinion in Powell vy Alahama, 287 US 45, 6869 (1932), emphasized: The night to be heard would he, in many cases, of Little avail ig it did not conprehend the right to fe heard fy counseb., Even the intelligent and educated fayman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of flaw. Lf changed with crime, he is incapakle, generally, of deteanining for himself whether the indictment £6 good oa hady Ha is unfamiliar with the aufes of evidence, Left without the aid of counse€ he may be put on ; trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, on evidence iarefevant to the issue on otheawise inadmissible. He Lacks the skibe and knowkedge adequately to prepare nis defense, even though he have a perlect one. He reguines the guiding hand of counsel at avery ster in the proceedings against him. Emphasis added.) duatice Cooley sinibarty noted the émpoatance of the night, stating that "'frferhaps the privilege most important to the person accused of caime, connected with his taial, is that to defended &y counsel.’” Pickens, 446 Mich at 371, quoting 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed), p 696. \ Because of its great impoatance in oun adversary system, the right to the assistance } of counsel includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Cronic at 654, citing Meflann vy Richardson, 397 US 759,771 (1970), In Peopte vy Pickens, supaa, a najonity of the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan Constitut