Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. WAS MR. HAMMONDS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS (U.S CONST. 1963, ART 1 § 20) WHERE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CALL A WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THAT WHENEVER DEFENDANT SLEPT AT HER HOUSE THAT THEY WENT TO BED TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME AND SLEPT TOGETHER ALL NIGHT. FURTHER SHE WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THE COMPLAINING WITNESS WOULD FLIP FLOP TO HER ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAD SEX WITH DEFENDANT OR NOT? II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON THE PROSECUTION’S MISCONDUCT OF SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO DEFENDANT DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT? III. DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED TRIAL COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WHERE THE PROSECUTION REPEATEDLY VIOLATED THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER THAT THE COMPLAINING WOULD NOT BE REFERRED TO AS A “VICTIM” AND DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO GET A FAIR TRIAL COULD NOT BE CURED BY A LIMITING INSTRUCTION? IV. DID THE TRIAL COURT’S INTERJECTION THAT THE COMPLAINING WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE NOT INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS BUT RATHER “MISUNDERSTANDINGS” DEMONSTRATED THE TRIAL COURT’S PARTIALITY TOWARD THE PROSECUTION AND IMPROPERLY INFLUENCED THE JURY BY CREATING THAT APPEARANCE OF ADVOCACY AND PARTIALITY AGAINST MR. HAMMONDS?