unreasonable manner. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 699, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002)(emphasis added); see also United States v. Pierson, 267 F.3d 544, 557 (7th Cir.2001)(noting that ADEPA provides for clear error review of state court Strickland adjudications because of the inherent “element of deference to counsel’s choices in conducting the litigation” in combination with the “layer of respect” added by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1))(internal citations omitted)). Moreover, the presentation of an alibi defense necessarily requires counsel to make numerous decisions regarding which witnesses to interview and present to the factfinder. If those decisions can reasonably be deemed strategic, such decisions “are virtually unchallengeable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, courts engage in a strong
holding that counsels strategic decisions were hard to attack holding that subject to the duty to bargain in good faith parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations holding that counsels strategic decisions should be afforded wide latitude recognizing the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions and that strategic choices made after less than complete investigation may be reasonable if reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation holding that us are accorded wide latitude in calendar management and the court will not micromanage their scheduling decisions any more than when it reviews such decisions by district judges