With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Kramer v. Kemna, 21 F.3d 305, 309 (8th Cir.1994). This does not automatically lead to a conclusion that counsel was ineffective however, because even if we assume that counsel’s failure to interview Morales did not meet an objective standard of conduct, Vazquez still needs to “make a substantial showing that, but for counsel’s failure to interview ... the witness[ ] in question, there is a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different.” Id. Vazquez has not made the substantial showing required of him in this case. He has not provided any independent evidence to the court as to what Morales would have allegedly said had be been interviewed or called to testify. See Sanders v. Trickey, 875 F.2d 205, 210 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 898, 110 S.Ct. 252,

A: holding that appellant who filed a  2255 motion but produced no affidavit from the witness in question or any other independent support for his claim failed to show prejudice because he offered only speculation that he was prejudiced by his counsels failure to interview the witness which was not enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial as required by strickland
B: holding that not only the employees testimony at the grievance hearing but also the affidavit that he filed and his agreement to be listed as a potential witness were entitled to protection
C: recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance
D: holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand
A.