WHAT IS A REASONABLE TIME PERIOD FOR TRIAL COUNSEL TO BE
REQUIRED TO BECOME AWARE OF RECENT PRECEDENCE,BEFORE HE/
SHE MAY DEEMED INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO UTILIZE A
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF A TRIAL THAT HAD NOT YET OCCURED ?

IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A STATE COURT OF APPEALS TO INSERT
ITS' OWN OPINION FOR TRIAL COUNSELS' FAILURE TO FAN
AN OBJECTION,ABSENT ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT IT'S OWN
CONCLUSIONS TO TRIAL COUNSELS' ACTIONS ?

THE HOLDING IN Missouri vs. Mcneely,133 S.CT. 1552,185
L,.Ed 2d 696 (2013) CLEARLY MANDATES THAT NON-CONSENSUAL
BLOOD DRAWS ABSENT A SEARCH WARRANT VIOLATE AN INDIVIDUALS
FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS,EXCEPT UNDER
EXTREMELY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.ABSENT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
ADMISSION OF BLOOD DRAW EVIDENCE AT TRIAL ,OBTAINED WITHOUT
A WARRANT WOULD BE DEEMED INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.HOWEVER,IF A STATE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
DISREGARDS THE MANDATE ISSUED UNDER McNeiy,AND INSTEAD
ASSUMES TRIAL COUNSEL WAS UNAWARE OF THE RECENT HOLDING,
AND THEREFORE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OBJECTION TO THE
INTRODUCTION OF BLOOD DRAW EVEDENCEEOBThINED INNCONRAILCTTONN
TO THE RECENT PRECEDENT SET UNDER McNeely,AND CONCLUDES
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE THE
THE APPROPRIATE OBJECTION,CONCLUDTNGTHAT DISPITE THE
THE SUPREMECY CLAUSE IMPLICATIONS,THE BLOOD DRAW EVIDENCE
WAS ADMISSIBLE,BECAUSE NO OBJECTION WAS MADE-WAS THE RESULT
OF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CONCLUSIONS CONTRARY
TO ESTABLISHED UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECENDENT WHICH
REQUIRES TRIAL COUNSEL TO BE AWARE OF THE LAW APPLICABLE
TO A CASE,NAD A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY -CLAUSE OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ?

UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE UNTIED STATESCONSTITUTION,DOES IT PERMIT A DELAY IN ADOPTING UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS,OR,DOES IT SPECIFY STATES MUST
MAKE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS IMMEDIATELY
AVAILABLE DEFENDANTS WHOSE CONVICTIONS HAVE NOT YET BECOME
FINAL ?

IF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE ALLOWED TO
EXCUSE TRIAL COUNSELS' LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF A RECENT
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT,BECAUSE THE TEXAS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAS NOT APPLIED THE RULING TO
EXISTING TEXAS LAW,WOULD IT NOT CREATE A LOOPHOLE FOR
THE STATE TO DELAY POTENTIAL DEFENSES ,OR ASSERT CONST' ITUTIONAL RIGHTS 2 . FURTHER,WOULD IT NOT ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY ELIMINATE DEFENSE

What is a reasonable time period for trial counsel to be required to become aware of recent precedence before he/she may be deemed ineffective for failing to utilize a United States Supreme Court holding that would substantially effect the outcome of a trial that had not yet occurred?