With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Frierson must show that (i) Lieman’s performance was deficient, and (ii) this deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To satisfy the performance prong, Frierson must show that Lieman’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052; United States v. Fry, 322 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2003). To satisfy the prejudice prong, Frierson must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for [Liema counsel is on notice that important mitigation evidence exists, a failure to uncover and present such evidence at the penalty phase represents ineffective assistance of counsel. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 525, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Lieman’s deficient performance is readily

A: holding that a defendant alleging ineffective assistance must demonstrate that their counsels performance both fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced the defense
B: holding that where counsels decision in leading the court into error falls below the standard of reasonable professional practice we may find that counsel was ineffective
C: holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy
D: holding counsels failure to prepare a social history report fell below professional standards where counsel was on notice of severe family dysfunction
D.