but for counsel’s decision not to call her, the outcome of the trial would have been different; so Watkins has also failed to show prejudice. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Watkins’s counsel was not ineffective by failing to call Odessa Watkins to testify at her son’s trial. Watkins also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call Betty Taylor, Donjeola Barker and Marvin Lumpkins as witnesses at trial. Counsel’s uncontroverted testimony was that he had never heard of these witnesses, and Watkins does not argue that counsel should have independently discovered them. Counsel’s failure to call these witnesses was therefore not deficient. See Battle v. Delo, 19 F.3d 1547, 1555 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Because counsel’s failure to call these
holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity holding that to demonstrate deficient performance a petitioner must show counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed a defendant by the sixth amendment holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument