presumption” that counsel’s performance was reasonable. Indeed, courts are to apply “a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The case law describes two lines of cases. In one line, the record may show counsel’s entire performance fell below the constitutional minimum. See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,120 S.Ct. 1495,146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (finding counsel’s performance ineffective where he failed to present substantial mitigation evidence to sentencing jury). In the other, the record may indicate that counsel, for the most part, provided adequate performance, yet he or she committed a single, critical error that renders the representation ineffective. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 386, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,
holding that counsels total failure to conduct pretrial discovery constituted ineffective assistance 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 holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing in ineffective assistance of counsel claims a presumption that counsels conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance