With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and federal standard). The Court of Appeal extensively reviewed the record and concluded that “the prosecution made reasonable, diligent, good faith efforts to locate Garrott and secure her attendance at trial.” Ex. G at 24. Investigators first attempted to locate Garrott more than a month before trial, and, after trial was continued for a few months, they “visit[ed] ... the Garrott residence almost every day” for over a week “in a continuing attempt to find and subpoena” her. Ex. G at 24-25; see also RT at 770, 773-77. The lding that effort was unreasonable where the prosecutor “made absolutely no effort to obtain” the witness after learning that the witness was in federal prison in another state); see also Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 212, 92 S.Ct. 2308, 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th

A: holding that an effort to intimidate a witness is relevant to the issue of the defendants state of mind and admissible under rule 404b
B: holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
C: holding that effort was reasonable where witness had relocated to another country and the state was powerless to compel his attendance at the trial
D: holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness
C.