Whether Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when trial counsel failed to raise certain evidentiary claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED L. whether Percn cee Cancel wes Vokes eat Oe Gh, vey ere NS sk a tsiniel AFFEr Hoe pcastertor made wnngroper Comments on We dghendawts TR oe silent by Heli SHE yuey Hel aney did nck hear Ane ofrér Sie he aiethec Pelroner Sud Ainendment Ogre \.sCons “4 effecnve . sexe unter Pobonte Sint Ameadinene Parts Ye Conc 40 efFECHNE Agsistenle CoNOSER vas Violated ulnen oe Camnsed Farled +0 Zarse > eager Af Ane EVGENLE Clan in & Pos -SEMrence Man = ed minener Pedihoner enh Arvendmenk Qiaks +0 4 Paice drial was Wiolere ae Moe ena UNck Erree Wed Balice Bilal FEEHE LES THe Sh youn wo one oF WE aesdvlts 1A quéstwon told police trek net Ae perpen Wed ween released Fromoensan 7 Dery pelihoner Wis Cy ve Eyam Ane wWibness. Ac wnetner Pebinerer Sort Amvenderenk Qaths U-SCane err eed « severance Counse’ as welaked vinen rial Conse | every Co Aime opening Cadement Wek Mere Tee quo sides XO EVEN v i is tt main Si , ~ nn Scour keen Bi rigs re wees cyceh WAS ne Prectivee. for Fashvug to TE. viviellaer Reno bere 0, bl Krave. Demin of SEVECANCY mofion And bENTM of Foss Mone” Jalota of nS hws race S$ rynte based yen pre-arrest delay : And d vielahon of pemener Speedy *ridh eeynt +: aa Wn ner pebhm tr wd: Ex diced 4o em bvidenthary Hemerng3