Question Number One:
Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to
K.H.'s (Complainant) therapist's testimony when she told the jury
"I would say most of the time, if not the majority of the time,
that children come into our center, it is very rare that we see a
child come in that is lying." RR5 , 126 . Because this^Honorable
Court makes it clear that "determining the weight and credibility
of witness testimony belongs to the jury," should the jurists of
reason consider the lower court's decision substantially debatable,
for holding "Counsel cured any possible harm by eliciting from the
therapist testimony that she does not conduct investigations, and
does not know with certainty whether any victim including K.H. are
telling the truth or a lie?" Cf. United States v. Scheffer , 523
U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 1278 (1998)..

Question Number Two:
Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investi
gate and present material witnesses to corroborate the Petitioner's
defensive theory that no sexual assault ever took place. Because
Counsel is obligated to conduct a reasonable investigation in or
der to present the most persuasive case that he can, should a ju
rist of reason consider the lower court's decision substantially
debatable for generally holding: "Petitioner fails to show how any
of the present evidence would have altered the outcome of the trial
to demonstrate that counsel provided ineffective assistance?" See
Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 685, 104 S.Ct. 2054 (1984).

Question not identified