Whe.h? a-n 0uH~Oisyy&y ZtitTtct/s Jh Y&StJgfi-tiOh? JLhottasds *tO
/hte.t'lsieu/ a. ofe'fihoLiutts t^s/tsted hriTtitss&s bec^s^ the. fcttoshty
MfstfrfcthJy a.fSMJ*itd the, ti/Jihh &5$ e.5 n/tre- adv'tisse- tv the, d&'fwidfrtfi/
is the, 6itt&r)n&y ;f jhVZSt'tqa-tt'&ti d^cts/dj lAf'frrrfrnt/y) y tu
&hfctysis Whdet' Si>/ckU^d?

ffodd the C&a^t ffd- Appedf ha-pt, CpnSi'dej'&cL the, C/*>;te,d States
StAprcy* ?&. Court d&cts/ftoj Andrus K, l~e.x^S / u/hen B^louuti^q
App @-l/frh"t~S dfrihn that h/S fetter'hty pra^ided, /hiC'ft-Q.Ctii/^ aSS/SterOL
d Cmnsd by *Pa,ihnq to ptrtorh* a, thorough Jy?r£S t/0^ tior 7

[/i/ho/thtr the. isue&s pyes&ht&d, bdous tve,rz, rtsoitsecL Correctly that
iSj in M,CCOrdar££. usfth the, hUppiiCcoUe. Itus*

Whether an attorney's failure to interview a defendant's requested witnesses due to a mistaken assumption of adversity constitutes a deficient investigation under Strickland,