With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prong). 57 .667 F.Supp. 1456, 1461 (S.D.Fla.1986), aff'd sub nom. Troedel v. Dugger, 828 F.2d 670 (11th Cir.1987). 58 . Id. at 1462. 59 . Id. 60 . 853 F.Supp. 1239, 1256 (W.D.Wash.1994) aff'd sub nom. Harris ex rel. Ramseyer v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1435-36 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that the state did not appeal the ballistics issue). 61 . Id. 62 . See id. 63 . Ploof III, 2012 WL 1413483, at *7 (Del.Super. Jan. 30, 2012). 64 . See J.W. Eisele et al., Sites of Suicidal Gunshot Wounds, 26 J. Forensic Sci. 480, 483 (1981) (stating that the study’s findings contradict another author’s statement that a woman who dies from a gunshot should be presumed to be a homicide victim until proven otherwise). 65 .426 F.3d 588, 608 (2d Cir.2005); see also Pavel v. Hollins, 261 F.3d 210, 227-28 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1388

A: holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsels failure to hire an expert when the experts testimony would not have changed the nature of the states evidence
B: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by letting a video technician who violated the rule testify when the record reflected sufficient evidence on which the jury could have found for appellees
C: holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present
D: holding that the petitioner had established prejudice when his attorney could have found experts who would testify that the prosecutions evidence was inconsistent with the frequency of abuse the victims alleged
D.