Whether the New York courts erred in applying the 'opening the door' standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 7 The New York court's opening the door standard utilized in the case at bar is no standard at all. Whether defense counsels opened the door to highly prejudicial evidence must be judge . under the correct standard, which cannot be, under any ; circumstance "may have" created a misimpression. Only when the trial court has determined that a misimpression “has been" ; created does a prosecutor have a right to introduce otherwise . inadmissible evidence to correct the misimpression that was ; _ created. : 7 : Moreover, there exists a presumption that a higher sentence . after a successful appeal is vindictive. This case presents the "opportunity for this Court to use this: case to explain what "presumptively vindictive" means and why recognizing it when it occurs is an essential part of being a competent criminal defense lawyer. Furthermore, this case can be used to note the distinction between New York and federal law on this question. , The questions presented are: . : . I. Whether the New York Courts erred when they failed to : adhere to Hemphill v. New York, and its progeny regarding the proper standard for door-opening? . Il. Whether the presumption of vindictiveness that exists , when an enhanced sentence is imposed after a successful appeal, can be ignored based upon counsel's failure to recognize it? III. Whether counsel was ineffective? :