Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED See altechec| NO.11-0653 and See cowl trenscyjots did nde provide, me ere Incfechve assisfonce Coonsi| Constttebion Guerentees thet al{ Procedi GGi NY ie \r. 1 tells IW Montana” Is What mefedtrue. assistance. cee ° We Me OS IF Mokeve Is ths S| dowthave. abide bey OS, Law or mee NS "nd They Courts denred doe prosess* Judge us| net alow) me to Cre tne [ncfechue assistonce Covreal Samy Pek | “do nab hove prot ght Then (ste satug ~ ops ger wh yor gwen” reer +b elective assstane. Courts did not A defend o hove He right to parheepste “ all ckayes o& The court PoRes See mode delondent prove anc Spoirted Ne Some Iw ecive Counct as cstandh ¥3 4, ores header CUse aNWg Me No AssiSpance, tac : Wen ¢ iy alow anc, of the evidence the. feerdony Ipod tp be adm Ww cow, me edeye, idiom recounted Wer sbakomew Souwg the delendeut did War in tect Commer this ere and Ss onthe stand et the prio Statements she, mcd Could usb be us \lpecause. he defenton Gd vcr Comme tw Crime , dhe Jave incongistonce datanent on the sfenel was dismissed The Dh. Trew Coudked avd thredtoned her then te cuts dlosed her to be. fecalled usthest Swearing her to Then giv ardther mconsistonce: Fete A. ail he actec! as Velomr Gartness + Sypeamg couct Then dened moval A Nopeletc: Comers: inckechwe asastonce whos defe wJoqt ove Counclt hed dhs sayreomadts that cole ret bo resdved ond Ropdcte comeil wale! net axgue Tack: the d endaut Was Presentiny