Was Defense Counsel ineffective for failing to object to the states known use of false testimony in Petitioners trial, violating his Constitutional Due process rights under the 6th Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Mr. Martin raises these questions because at trial the State presented known “material” false testimony from its two key witnesses and neither the state nor Defense Counsel corrected what it knew to be false and elicit the truth. The only alleged evidence against Mr. Martin that links him to these crimes was witness testimony. Defense counsel knew the testimony was false and did not object. The state and the court stated that counsels failure to object to false testimony falls within the wide range of professional conduct. ! 1. Was Defense Counsel ineffective for failing to object to the states known use of false testimony in Petitioners trial. Violating his Constitutional Due process rights under the 6th Amendment. 2. Was the States known use of material false testimony in petitioner's trial a violation of his Constitutional Due Process rights under the 14tt Amendment. 3. Does the Ninth Circuit Courts interpretation of Strickland, that Defense Counsels failure to object to the states known use of material false testimony in the Petitioners trial, (falls within the wide range of professional conduct,) conflict with relevant decisions of this court and go against clearly established Federal law. Violating Petitioners Constitutional Due Process rights under the 6» and 14t» Amendments. : i