Whether a mixed question of law and fact under Strickland v. Washington is reviewed for clear error or de novo, and whether an appellate court can rely on jury acquittals to assess prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel claims

1. Where the court that presided over a defendant’s trial and post -conviction evidentiary hearing finds the defendant suffered prejudice under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984) , is that mixed question of law and fact reviewed for clear error or reviewed de novo? 2. Where a defendant was convicted of one count but acquitted of others , may an appellate court rely on the acquittals in the jury’s verdict as proof that he was not prejudiced under Strickland ? 3. If the erroneous introduction of collateral crime evidence is presumptively prejudicial on direct appeal , may a post -conviction court rely on that presumption in concluding that the defendant was prejudiced by his attorney’s deficient performance in failing to object to the presentation of such evidence?