Whether a court may conduct a prejudice analysis that focuses solely on the sufficiency of the evidence presented, or must instead consider the closeness of the case and likelihood of a different outcome

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In this case, the Michigan state court and reviewing federal courts have found trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for employing a fundamentally misguided defense strategy and for failing to impeach a key prosecution witness. Courts called this case a close one, where the sad fact is that Paula Bennett did very little to receive a non-parolable life sentence. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, found no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The questions presented are: 1. Whether, under Strickland, a court may conduct a prejudice analysis that focuses solely on the sufficiency of the evidence presented, or must it instead consider the closeness of the case and whether there is a reasonable likelihood the outcome would have been different without counsel’s errors. 2. Whether Strickland requires courts to consider the cumulative prejudicial impact of the totality of counsel’s errors, as a majority of circuits have held, or instead the prejudice of each of trial counsel’s errors in isolation, as held by the remaining minority. i