Whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel where the trial court allowed the introduction of tampered evidence without the petitioner's knowledge or consent

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | ts it Iwepectue Assistence o€ Comsel WHERE ¢ te) 6 PHENE EXTLACTIONS, ALL DIFFEREOT ANN AALS) Fick, THEREEY Proume “TAMPEREDS ZUDENCE” WERE wer ALLower At TUAL Due % THE tOxce "AHooS We“ oNE. THS WAS "AGREED To” BY DELENSE CouneiL Without NE FEN METS APPROVAL of KNOWLES GE. a& by Tile JOS6E RULES Thr The DeFEusE COS MoT te Bll uP THe “LA, Ageur’ ALEYAPDER, CRIMINAL EHA Vio. SNE TMT FAL ACeut ION Nor PLEODS GUILTY, BUT, AGork to TRAL, ALEXEI DIS PLAS Gut 16 FRADSULENTLY ALTEMWUG GOVERN MBIT Doculeurs DEFOE ATTONUEY NEVE. Follower vp A, tt 4 , 3. a) “DeeS Kuseiss Nteey ’ ww the SEXUL OFFENSE sTATUTES AT ISSUE HERE, IBS av A4Q2UNs 2257 Ds 2252 (ADB, MVE IE SAME “DEFINITION fo SeeMTERS MENS QR AS vA) THe Supreme Covers Rous ns REMI V US. 1°? US. v RUA? Ymse 1S Bem Te uel 1wsfpucrons 2 :