Crigler’s question has proven to be a premonition of the state of the trial record — the trial transcript flatly refutes Michel’s assertions regarding the substance of Smith’s representation. For example, as Judge Crigler noted, “the cross examinations of [two government witnesses] demonstrate that Smith questioned them about their experiences as drug dealers and their incentive to cooperate with law enforcement in exchange for potential reductions in their sentences.” (Docket No. 904 at 15.) Furthermore, as Judge Crigler observed, the transcript of Smith’s closing argum . 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (establishing a presumption of correctness with respect to decisions rendered by appropriate medical professionals); Froelich v. Senior Campus Living LLC, 355 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). This court is of the opinion that court
recognizing that pursuant to the business judgment rule the decisions of business professionals on the board of directors should be presumed valid holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes holding under delaware law that if the directors individually and the board collectively fail to inform themselves fully and in a deliberate manner then they lose the protection of the business judgment rule  holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation  holding that where approval of the board of directors was not formally requested a demand would have been futile for it could hardly be expected that if approval of the board of directors were sought defendant who controlled 50 of the board would have authorized the action against himself