Did the Utah Supreme Court violate this Court's binding case law when it failed to (1) properly assess Strickland deficient performance by considering the range of legitimate strategic reasons defense counsel may have had for not objecting to the State's cross-examination of one of Lovell's former ecclesiastical leaders, and (2) properly assess Strickland prejudice when, even assuming deficient performance, it failed to reweigh the totality of the aggravating and mitigating factors that still would have been before the jury absent any error by counsel?

Did the Utah Supreme Court violate binding case law by improperly assessing Strickland deficient performance and prejudice in a death penalty case involving a murder and rape?