a change in story. We refuse to find counsel deficient for not uncovering evidence that Mickey did not tell the original investigators, especially when forty witnesses confirmed Mickey’s original story. Since counsel were not deficient in their investigation into abuse, they also were not deficient in failing to present evidence of the same abuse. But, even if counsel were deficient in uncovering this purported abuse, the testimony of the forty witnesses provides an additional reason that counsel were not deficient in not presenting it. If counsel presented Mickey’s new story regarding abuse, assuming Mickey or someone else would have testified to it, then surely the State could have put on some of the forty witnesses to contradict Mickey or the other witness. Williams, 384 F.3d at 611 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, counsel reasonably chose not to
holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing defendants right to confront witnesses with adequate crossexamination holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence holding counsel may refuse to call witnesses because of their weakness on crossexamination