Would a reasonable jurist find error in the District Court's assessment that hearsay statement in the case at bar was 'non testimonial' according to the standard established in Crawford v. Washington?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Mr.Morin alleges that the district court erred by mischaracterizing * statements from a non-testifying witness, resulting in severe prejudice against him. Mr.Morin was convicted, in large part, as a result of. this misclassification. Because of this Mr.Morin was denied the ability to confront a key witness against him. This error — created a distinct slant in the weight of evidence against him. This case thus presents the following question. Would a reasonable jurist find error in the District Court's assessment that hearsay statement in the case at bar was "non testimonial" according to the standard established in Crawford v. Washington? Mr.Morin alleges that photos shown to the jury, contrary to the trial and district court determination, were more prejudicial than probative, that they served no legitimate purpose in the proving of guilt. Mr.Morin further alleges that the trial court abused it's discretion by allowing the photos to be shown to the jury, as they served not to establish guilt, but only to excite emotion. This case presents the following question, Would a reasonable jurist find error in the District Court's determination that photographs shown to the jury were more probative than prejudicial violating Morin's right to fundamental fairness? ; Mr.Morin alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence that may have had a mitigating effect. This error may have had an adverse effect on the trial because it speaks directly to the credibility of the state's key witness. This case thus presents the following question. Having reviewed the evidence, could reasonable jurists find trial counsel ineffective for not investigating possible exculpatory impeachment evidence included in the State's Brady Disclosure? ii ;