1. In an SBS prosecution, where defense counsel neither calls, nor consults with, an SBS expert to counter the prosecution's expert testimony on the "triad" findings of retinal hemorrhage, cerebral edema, and subdural hematoma, does such attorney's performance fall within the "rare" types of situations envisioned in Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 106 (2011) and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984) in which defense counsel can be found ineffective for failing to present counter expert testimony?; and

2. If so, where a defense attorney neither presents nor seeks such readily available counter-expert testimony demonstrating that a conviction based on the triad has become "unsustainable" since 1998, does a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel arise under Strickland?

Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-for-failure-to-present-counter-expert-testimony-on-shaken-baby-syndrome