Does it constitute ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to object to a state's chief witness's testimony that a non-testifying declarant stated the defendant was in fact committing the crimes for which he was on trial, in violation of the 6th and 14th Amendments

Question Presented? DiD 1+ CoashiMute \nePechive Assistance ef Counse| Fee Deftnse Covnsel to Fal +e Request a heer "Ag Pers van tea Deberry Vs Stade Del 4ST AID 744 923), When Here WES Clear Uncentrsdietee Evidence that Gn Audie Recorching whick WAC Alempteol to be Cone. by The State Mal Foac toned Bering he Majority Part of an Alllege Reverding oF one. of the Crimes Fer Which Ady debondandwas Cowrcted By The Standard and Scope of Review +s Whefer Tral Couns Conduct in WS Representation of He defendant Failed the Objective: Standard of NMeasonahblagss and +kere ss a (ear Sonab| ¢ Probability that but Tar Ws Professional ervers phe Peso// of He Posceecling World have been Difeerent as a mabfey op Law. Deickland vo Washington 446 US. besigzey oy Meriks of Argument! Trial Covasel was Dneteedive in Faitoag Te fequesk a hearing Purssank +, Debecry v. State 457 A.dd 744 (6983) When +he Cleac Evidence Revealed fhat aa Av dic Recording of Gre of He Alleged Crimes For wh rk the deferclaat wes charge ol was Losf Acasmeat lv 4. Qeeskirn Poesentedy DO ib Constitole \nefrecthue. Assistance. of Covnse\ +o Fail to Request A hearing to Debtemne He Idbertitf of A Conf dentia| lnlormenk barsoank to State Frowers del sqaer Sib Aad sey (1973) When that Confidential Lnfhenadk Srsessel Exculpatery Informehien Far Ale olofense add was qn Achoal Fert espn if dhe Allesedd Crime which the State Alleged b6ktorred 7 The De Fendandt Applian frevervecl 4he Qrestion in Phe Priel coor b/ Filing bs moten for Pest-Conrichen Kilroh. 8) The Stendacd and Scope of Review is WwhedieTre | Covase Conduct in, Wis Representation of He Detadant Faled tie Objective Standard OF Reasonabless and there 1S a Reesonable Probability That lout Gor WN Professional Eecors Ake cesuik of the Proceeding Weld have. been Different ay a meter of Law. S\ecklaad Vs Washington Yb6 US. bb G4 74) Q Merits of Acgomeat 2 Tal Covasel was InefPahve sn Fahey te Request a Nearing “ko determine. the lolenfity Of A Content | Informant Lhe YAS any Actoal Pacticipant to at Leasf ene oF the Alleged CAMES LUdshich sche. defendanl Wag Charged sith waNA had Excl patery Dn hemahona