Whether a reasonable jurist can conclude counsel's failure to object to jury strikes and exclude exculpatory medical testimony constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment

question presented is whether a reasonable jurist can conclude counsel's failure to object was ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. : Petitioner was falsely and wrongfully imprisoned, falsely accused of murdering his two year old daughter based on the testimony of tainted medical examiners..."false and inaccurate" testimony, in the words of a federal district judge, (U.S. Eighth Circuit Judge Ralph R. Erickson). In other cases has resulted in multiple exonerations, a man found Innocent in an infant death exoneration, (and exonerations in other death) cases in recent years. The question presented is whether a reasonable jurist can conclude that Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in a habeas proceeding based on the signed notarized affidavit of the physician who attended his daughter when she very first arrived at the hospital, and referral to Sanford Heart Hospital Fargo North Dakota, to a "world class heart surgeon," as attending physician noted "Cardiac." The affidavit expresses the physicians first attending medical expert opinion and its highly prejudicial to exclude exonerating exculpatory medical testimony from being heard that the Petitioner is actually innocent and he was wrongfully convicted, because the jurors never had a chance to hear the attending physician before the trial court, and should not be excluded. 1 . ; Hi ! , aa