Whether a curative instruction was improperly denied when rumors of murder involvement were introduced without counsel objection, and whether the Supreme Court should provide guidance on ineffective assistance of counsel standards when broken promises prevent meaningful adversarial testing

(1) When rumors that Petitioner was involved in the murder were twice put into evidence before the jury without counsel objecting or asking for a curative instruction, did the District Court's ruling that a curative instruction was not needed because it may remind the jury of the rumors, stray too far from this Court's and many other Federal Circuits and even state courts standard decisions that curative instructions are mandatory and presumed to be followed ; in order to limit and to focus the jury on its permissible use of the rumors, especially when the judge's jury charge permitted the witness's testimony to be considered as substantive evidence? Suggested Answer, Yes. (2) As the U.S. Supreme Court has never decided a case involving ineffective assistance of counsel relative to broken promises to a jury, is this court s guidance needed to resolve disputes among the federal circuit courts as to what prejudice analysis should be employed, Strickland, or Cronic (when the broken promises > fails to subject the prosecution's case to a meaningful adversarial testing? Suggested Answer, Yes, the Court's guidance is needed. (3j when a lower court finds no prejudice has resulted from counsel's deficient A performances due to overwhelming "undisputed evidence" of guilt, should not the disputed evidence never admitted due to counsel's errors be considered to potentially offset a finding of overwhelming evidence? Suggested Answer, Yes.