which offered a coherent theory of innocence based on the very limited exculpatory evidence in the record. A defense counsel need not be the equal of Clarence Darrow to pass constitutional muster, see Wise v. Smith, 735 F.2d 735, 738 (2d Cir. 1984), and in this case petitioner was plainly afforded constitutionally adequate representation at his trial. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, I recommend that the writ be denied and the petition dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from this date to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court 42, 43 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1044, 88 S.Ct. 1643, 20 L.Ed.2d 305 (1968) (<HOLDING>). 1 . By the time of trial, Mr. White and Ms.
holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted holding that the insufficiency of factual data necessary for the resolution of a question presented is a reason for declining to grant declaratory relief holding that insufficiency of indictment is not a basis for habeas relief holding that remand for new trial is remedy for factual insufficiency of evidence