Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, when trial counsel failed to investigate the only evidence that could have changed the outcome of the trial, which is the ramification of post ischemic priapism surgery

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mr. Hamilton alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his medical procedure for priapism. Mr. Hamilton was convicted upon uncorroborated testimony ; . that he molested his step granddaughter. The omitted medical evidence, along with a professional expert witness would have refuted the State’s witness’s testimony, as incredible, because a physical impossibility exists. In finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Seventh Circuit relied upon the District court’s order of the State’s court " statement of the facts on appeal, but significantly misstated even that slanted version of the fact. The case thus presents the following questions. 1. Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, when trial counsel failed to investigate the only evidence that could have changed the outcome of the trial, which is the ramification of post ischemic priapism surgery. 2. Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, when there was insufficient evidence to convict, because at least one element could not have been proved based upon incredible testimony, which is an erect penis that could point straight, the State’s witness’s could not have seen, felt, or experienced what they testified to, which is an essential element necessary for conviction, i