Where the state's only eyewitness and linchpin of its case, the co-defendant, struck a deal whereby she would plead to a lesser offense and testify against the defendant to avoid a severe sentencing outcome; where the co-defendant failed to mention the deal when asked why she pled guilty; where counsel failed to use available information about the deal to correct the false and misleading impression left with the jury that the state had no deal with its key witness, Was it error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), for the Georgia Supreme Court to reject Petitioner's ineffective assistance claim on the basis of trial counsel's post-hoc rationale that he did not want to 'beat [the witness] up' about the plea deal for his failure to present evidence of the co-defendant's deal?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Where the state’s only eyewitness and linchpin of its case, the co-defendant, struck a deal whereby she would plead to a lesser offense and testify against the defendant to avoid a severe sentencing outcome; where the co-defendant failed to mention the deal when asked why she pled guilty; where counsel failed to use available information about the deal to correct the false and misleading impression left with the jury that the state had no deal with its key witness, Was it error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), for the Georgia Supreme Court to reject Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim on the basis of trial counsel’s post-hoc rationale that he did not want to “beat [the witness] up” about the plea deal for his failure to present evidence of the co-defendant’s deal?