I.
WAS DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR
CONSENTING TO THE PROSECUTOR'S EXTREMELY
UNTIMELY REQUEST FOR A DNA SAMPLE —A MOVE
THAT THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINE DIDN'T
GREATLY PREJUDICE ME, EVEN UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS.
STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668,694. U.S.
CONST. AMENDS. VI. XIV.

II.
UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS, DID TRIAL COURT
VIOLATE MY DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
BY PRECLUDING DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM CROSS-EXAMINING '
A KEY WITNESS ABOUT A PRIOR ARREST. CONTRARY TO THE
APPELLATE DIVISION FINDINGS. DELAWARE V. VAN ARSDALL,
475 U.S. 673, 678-679. U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI. XIV.

III.
DID THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE PROSECUTOR'S
REMARKS, THAT THE APPELLATE DIVISION DEEMED HARMLESS,
DEPRIVE ME OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL,
UNDER FEDERAL STANDARDS. U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV.

Was defense counsel ineffective for consenting to the prosecutor's extremely untimely request for a DNA sample?