Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Nonetheless, under Strickland, “counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A key prosecution witness’s prior criminal history and resultant parole status clearly constitute important impeachment evidence. It is beyond the range of professionally reasonable judgment to forego investigation of, and impeachment based upon, such evidence absent some apparent strategic reason that might explain or excuse counsel’s failure. “Thus, viewed objectively, [Grant’s] counsel unreasonably failed to introduce such impeachment evidence.” Ross v. Dist. Att’y of the Cnty. of Allegheny, 672 F.3d 198, 210 (3d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Counsel’s failure to make reasonable efforts
holding that trial counsels failure to introduce evidence of prosecution witnesss crimen falsi conviction constituted deficient performance holding that the failure to recognize every possible legal argument did not render counsels performance constitutionally deficient recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel holding that counsel could have reasonably determined that the trial court would not sustain a rule 403 objection therefore counsels failure to object to this evidence was not deficient performance