Whether the Indiana Court of Appeals' precedent has set the bar for the Strickland v. Washington prejudice prong too high

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Indiana Court of Appeals’ precedent published in Warren v. State, 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) addressing Warren’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim has set the bar for the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) Sixth Amendment’s prejudice prong much too high when it employed the rationale that Warren’s evidence did not exonerate him but merely implicated other potential suspects. The applicable standard is not whether there was sufficient evidence to affirm a conviction on appeal but whether a jury could reasonidbly have reached a different outcome but for counsel’s unprofessional mistakes, and that standard only requires a reasonable doubt. The Indiana Court of Appeals belittles the Sixth Amendment and undermines the Bill of Rights guarantee that all citizens shall have the right to a fair trial. This right to a fair trial is sacrosanct regardless of whether the Court of Appeals thinks Warren committed this crime; whether or not he committed the crime is immaterial. What matters here is whether there is a reasonable probability a jury of his peers could have reached a different outcome. Warren’s trial was unfair due to his counsel’s decidedly unprofessional mistakes found to be deficient and unprofessional, and the published opinion sets a dangerous precedent and created a new hurdle that contradicts well-established and longstanding stare decisis. ii