Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel where defense counsel failed to adequately understand and present the significance of DNA evidence that did not support the State's theory of the case

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED D. At a thied Hage E vid entiary Hearing , Defense Counsel Testified that he had never before seen DNA evidence of this wature , Had “wo HAwDce oN THe DNA EviDENCE., AN? __ Liability to compte hewd the Siquifican ce of DWA evidence * Did not ohtain an Not Support the states theory af the case, In ight of these facts, where the defendant relied on defense coupsel? comments, that DNA evidence wes ineenclosive and did_sot_support States theory ,as the basis to deine a dea ~ageoement of time Served tw County jail and two (a) years prohation, did the Appellate Court Err in deciding Counsel _was_wot ine fective and that _ defendant did not Shaw preyodice dispite bis 57 year Sentemce ? A) \Whece the interragating officer never asked the defendant if he wanted to waive his Miranda Rights aud deferidant, ever though extremely & intoxicated , Stated he had_an.” A Horney Here and during the interrosation ; 4old the officer he had requested ost attorney Did Ahe Fourth Detrich Appellate Court Err in relying awl, ups tate case law in | fiaiding his request BWhere DNA samples. from the vicim Contained DNA from three (3) semeate, but _uvideut fled ,hispanic_Male contributors, aud even the prosieebaps ultimately gave 3% stage testimony that the DNA evidence did wot support the Sates thency of +h e_case., Did the Appellate Co uct erriwhen' it ‘decided that trial counsels decision wot to obtain_a DNA expert was_a viable trial Arat gy aNd therefore did _cender effective couvse]? , ee _ ee