Whether counsel's failure to challenge the admissibility of expert testimony and hearsay evidence prejudicially impacted the defendant's right to a fair trial

Counsel ■///(? <S\S5'/J'/c«ce boher? 4o cW|<nje oP JunK Sew uM &>rnis Ae [>n'™y ^Vi'dtnce. of ^vil-k H-ere, Counsel Q<u(ed +o ck<x//<?^e -fhe. ■deSp/rnaty oP Lx /,/€xper4' v Coho ofV-e^J 4hx —Ophion 4-WUpled^cv ujas (\enr/^ Sc&nc. Of Vv»€ G c I'm. «44-ke Vm <4COzcJ Carnftidhtc/., CtS cu necu Jrt'al Cukene -Llu S G/dovc-e coa.s G<AiCce\ 4-o 4-ke, J<jny Ks VerAtcf? TC^ Tn^ Counsel Genies 5 ttoeWechve GSs^V^nco t*Aen 4-Wy £c<( ( 4-o ., r'etuV 1rcu\ CY-PerV uj^us cooulcL Vvw/e G£-U-W iSVied d-'^d4-W. <__.Cv I ( 0^ p'€x"V^ OpiYQton 'fVccCc-^c/^ Z/'Cr'e z CoctnS^.1 Call 6c CSL^C. rebut4-ke ^apihia^ -Pked zPUd<jer' Loas 4-ivG Sc^ne. of 4-VvG Cn m-e. a,4i^e 4-trwc s’4comb TS A. f)CU> 4~<"taJ Gc^uire.4 bo^Cxc Co^np^C-exaV <p«,H =o<<>'^vvcC likely CuavlJ tft ovn <xc^vi44a,\ 7 J1LTr»cJ Counsel Mendes'S Tn& ’Pfiec'/-/^e G-SS/S^nce. 4-he.y P-ecrt -/q obJecA-Vo Vye_<xrg^ -ev/iAence bobvicVi ccKouOS 4-ke Ccynmona;*?"-/'^ "fo defea./ a fYla-l-ion £>r retjuir-ed CowiSe/ 'fi^r/ec/ rPj o^Jec/ 4-a Kcaf-sn^ uohtch £r^ed oniy ei/J^ce Connech^j Mr, ■&> fhone ^<-J<jener<x-Led -Vk-a. ^tS^oV&l CSLT -evidenCAXs a. Q-eW A-<\c4 ceejuireJ wUce O.n Object u)dOul resdW tn . nA-cadence for 4-Vve. CKSe. -f-o re^-cVi Vvc ■* i.Chmm J de^d^lis. -en-t-dl-ed 4, jur^ ot HiJ Were.j \\i jur^r IblccCk. VoCom^Sct^ i a n b€ GXcuS&c[S-UVvU Cau^d °V^ru> 4se for Pin<3.nCraJ LiA^rJ/Ckipy f'eSul'h'^ in 'pfitseM-eb a D</e ^okVion , TS 4-n<J r^cdLt ±o A-V\ • S SVrycU/fqJ ^'Tito<T