Opinion ID: 3133306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: post-conviction phase issues

Text: 24. Whether the district court applied the correct standard for Abdullah’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 25. Whether the district court erred by denying Abdullah’s discovery requests for gasoline additive evidence. 26. Whether the district court erred by destroying certain jury questionnaires. 27. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to the removal of a letter from the crime scene, stipulation to the letter’s admission into evidence, and failure to object when the State disclosed that the defense’s investigator discovered the letter. 28. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate, prepare, and present an adequate case in mitigation. 29. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present an eyewitness identification expert. 30. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present testimony from a forensic pathologist. 31. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to consult and present a gasoline expert. 17 32. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the admission of the defense’s letter to prosecutors requesting additional testing of Angie’s blood. 33. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for delaying opening statement. 34. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present an alibi defense. 35. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for conceding Abdullah’s presence in Boise on the night of the murder. 36. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his right to testify in the guilt and penalty phases and to allocute. 37. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during jury selection. 38. Whether the district court erred by dismissing Abdullah’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to defective guilt and penalty phase jury instructions.