of those offenses, and five years imprisonment for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony. 3 . For the purposes of Cherrix’s motion, the equivalent would be that services for DNA testing would be reasonably necessary if the habeas petitioner raises claims entitling the petitioner to a hearing at which the testing results would be used as evidence. 4 . A 1999 update to these numbers revealed that 60 people since 1992 had been convicted of crimes and exonerated by DNA evidence. See 1999 Report, at 2. 5 . Cf. Hunt v. McDade, 205 F.3d 1333, 2000 WL 219755, *3 (4th Cir.2000) (unpublished) (finding that DNA was not sufficient to prove the petitioner's actual innocence because multiple assailants were involved in the crime, and further noting that cases wher 492 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264, 604 A.2d
holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony 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 there was no ineffective assistance due to appellate counsels failure to challenge the trial courts denial of the motion to change venue because the defendant failed to show actual prejudice holding that trial counsels strategy of explaining that defendant was at the scene of crime to deal drugs rather than commit robbery was not unreasonable holding that a new trial was necessary due to the petitioners counsels failure to seek dna testing on hairs gathered from the crime scene