Whether Adrian Akram's conviction violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington by failing to conduct a complete investigation and present available alibi evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1.) Does Petitioner Adrian Akram's canviction rest on a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights announced in Strickland v. Washington? Where he was deprived of his constitutional right to trial counsel's duty to a complete and thorough investigation or to give a reasonable explanation why he did not? (A) and (B) Counsel's duty ta present the available alibi evidence to substantiate petitioner's affirmative time line alibi defense after telling the jury he would present that evidence, where trial counsel gave na reasonable explanation why he did not present that evidence? 2.) Where there is na evidence in the record what so ever trial counsel did any investigation into Adenis Akram, does placing his name on the alibi notice/witness list constitute Strickland standard "complete" and "thorough investigation"? 3.) Where there is no evidence in the record, that during petitioner's third and final trial, defense counsel presented any af the available evidence, by any witness, including Rachel Akram, that petitioner was seen at the visuing services at the Swanson Funeral Home at 5:30 thru 5:40pm the time of Orlando Miller's shooting, does not presenting the available evidence constitute a violation of Strickland effective assistance of Counsel obligations? Where defense counsel himself told the jury he did not present any witness claiming to have seen petitioner there at the time of the murder, does this evidence contradict the United States Court of Appeals decisian? 4.) Should the "Law of the Case" doctrine have Constitutional Protections? 5.) Does the "New Standard” set by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, for No longer needing to interview witnesses for the defense, as long as defense counsel places their names on the notice of alibi comply with Strickland?