IF A TRIAL ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE OMMISION OF A REQUIRED INSTRUCTION FROM THE JURY CHARGE RAISES THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON DIRECT APPEAL, WHERE, HAD TRIAL COUNSEL PROPERLY OBJECTED AT TRIAL THE OUTCOME OF THE DIRECT APPEAL WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, DOES THE SECOND PRONG OF STRICKLAND APPLY?

Whether a trial attorney's failure to object to the omission of a required jury instruction raises the burden of proof on direct appeal, where the outcome would have been different had the objection been made