Could reasonable jurists find ineffective an attorney's failure to investigate the identity and effects of a drug administered to an accused at the time of a taped statement to police?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 alleging that his attorney denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel by failing to investigate the identity and side-effects of a drug | injected into his leg just before police taped their questioning of him relating to a charge of firearm possession. The prosecutor used the interrogating officer’s claim that Petitioner’s confused and beaten| down demeanor in the tape as her key proof of guilt claiming it reflected his consciousness of guilt. | Petitioner alleged that an investigation would have revealed that the usual side effects of the medication he received before the interrogation included depression and confusion. Petitioner cited the jury’s difficulty reaching a verdict and the trial judge’s observation that the tape was the evidence that convicted him in an otherwise circumstantial case. Petitioner also challenged counsel’s failure to object , to the jury receiving a transcript of one officer’s testimony which included an unobjected to statement | that Petitioner’s father said he was shooting a gun ostensibly to explain why the officer approached | Petitioner. Trial counsel did not inform the court that Petitioner’s father clarified to police that he did not actually see Petitioner shooting a gun. Petitioner asked for a hearing to challenge an affidavit trial | counsel provided to justify his omissions. , The Seventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. The issues presented are these: 1. Could reasonable jurists find ineffective an attorney’s failure to investigate the identity | and effects of a drug administered to an accused at the time of a taped statement to police? 2. Could reasonable jurists find ineffective an attorney’s failure to object to the jury getting | a transcript during deliberations containing a hearsay statements inviting a mistaken inference that Petitioner’s father saw him commit the charged crime? 3. Could reasonable jurists disagree on whether the foregoing issues and the denial of an evidentiary hearing thereon warrant a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B)? 2