Is a defendant denied due process if his claim is not addressed by state or federal courts?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mr. Vincent alleged that his trial counsel was grossly ineffective for presenting an incomplete defense of mistaken identification, which was neither supported by an identification instruction or supporting, favorable eyewitness testimony which were both at trial counsel's disposal. Mr. Vincent was convicted, solely on the unreliable identification of a single witness although several witnesses identified other suspects. The omitted identication instructions would have lead the much needed guidance that the jury was seeking in evaluating the identification evidence in this case, as evident in the several questions asked by the jury during deliberations, all pertaining to the identication of Mr. Vincent. Further the omitted eyewitnesses would have testified to witnessing other suspects at the scene of the crime that were not Mr. Vincent. The Third Circuit relied on the State Court's decision which failed to adjudicate claims that was properly presented to all courts, and it's ruling is in conflict with the circuits and inconsistent with its prior rulings. The case thus presents the following question : I. Is a defendant denied due process of law if he properly presents a claim to both the State and Federal Courts and neither Court addresses the claim ? I. Does an Attorney's performance meet the minimum requirment of effective assitance of trial counsel guaranteed under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States : Constition where the defense strategy is mistaken identification and trial counsel failed to; (1) request any identification instruction whatsoever, be it Cautionary, Standard, Sexton, or otherwise; (2) failed to call eyewitness who witnessed other suspects other than Petitioner coming from crime scene; (3) failing to cross-examine lead investigator about other suspects who were arrested in relation to this crime ? |