Whether the court's placement of the defendant's boss on the stand to testify about the defendant's phone call to his boss constitutes a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel

No question identified. : ° . . QUESTION(S) (tas of ., oe = bag | in . A)wae mh Nap cos Tones Codi int Viol ATiont givs De OY} ARE A Fai BL WHlen' Te Couit Place DeFenDaTs bas hie on Denis 1 Sluey? THis PrompT DEFENDANT To Call His BassTo Ask iF Belen (sic) ME ats Lineal 2 HifEs WiFE O° Livcolug Beemlee Wileze DeFenbin —_ MopkeD Will BSTH meg DiDTs Viola DefenDaciis SFT Afni Teal? piste cenit PLacine Eelene wiGle ont THE STast 19 Te Estify ABoal sip PH Cll B ever Defend at ap His Eo ConSTiTaTe: REE SY EVIDENCE. ayy Nis ID mSSILE § Spud | AT He SDD Papi Defender_f-SanD; Ertinnt Boles RelucTance Tp “SAY Tair ConiSTTAE Ind Fath. AesSTaact of Counsel DiD'Eei, Boles RELUCTANCE Ted of eT Te TEShinos Fa Blue, Dalsun B-2to-tfar WASAT impo Foe SE Evideae CouSIMRTE Tatas, AssiSTaice Of Conpust] 6/Sinestbng? AD, lube tes’ Suzy TaSTeutTin AF Tee Reticveiny Eatewes Uli of Hee. Dulles CONST A Mi ebicihls Tuy Lastaar wiles) HETAD Te claey THAT Noo eas Fide Defend ay iy AF You Feel He DEFEAT eal His Bossy1 Have His BoseTo ase Wisk For Lenieacy lo THe DeFenay’ S.DID Ex F.gt, Dieedlon Janes Comey WoRKAS A ATloggie 12 Sau Dregs Pubic DeFenDeps OFFice int 1491! Was He Atop PoaTTice tata Geter Hl cies ee Foe Beit Eales He WET CoulT Dry? ©. Was Suntntt HoStin (Now cobet of tHe View) Audlacize Te ReppeseaIMe Sant Dies; Pat About OFFice Me Veky Sarre NOT Coual Day tar Tees Carney STATED THAT He wes Lda? Foe Being Byes? 7 Was Sunni HoSTinl parent A} Fb AN Was SHE PuTHaeaze To praclick wi bCabiForowa, Foe THe Dee Paley OFFice of “ Deg 0? ‘cuitTteom ia 996 Defen FAUe Talal iny Sedat oats Couftaon i 98 ji Ws DeFesa AFFouDe> a Towns Joby eter earn Fay teial ACU Rteey