Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file proper notice under F.R.Cr.P. 16 to present expert testimony on computer operations and missing emails

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether under the Strickland standards of deficient performance and | prejudice, trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a proper notice under | i : F.R.Cr.P. 16, which caused the District Court in turn, to preclude petitioner from | calling expert testimony at trial on the issues of intricate computer operations and missing e-mail headings, missing e-mails, where the critical evidence against | appellant was based upon e-mail communications, where pre-trial filings indicate trial counsel had every intention to call a forensic expert at trial and where it was claimed that there were unexplained missing e-mails and e-mails were | manipulated. | 2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in not applying the standards of | United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), when counsel failed to file a proper | pre-trial notice of expert disclosure of a defense forensic computer expert, as required by F.R.Cr.P. 16 caused a pervasive ineffectiveness of counsel by requiring | counsel to rely upon ineffective cross examination and petitioner's testimony in a | jury trial, to undermine the government’s case. | 3. Assuming lack of pervasive ineffectiveness does not apply under the Cronic | standard, whether such deficiency is prejudicial where this is the | contested issue at trial and the prosecution is permitted to introduce expert | testimony in rebuttal to the defendant's lay testimony. i