reveals that he did, in fact, emphasize to the jury that the government’s witnesses should not be believed based on their status as convicted criminals and “liars[,]” and on their personal incentives to cooperate with “presumption of undue influence” under the laws of different states in the context of wills); see also 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 843 (6th ed. 2006 & Supp.2009) (explaining presumptions in general and listing “illustrative presumptions”). In support of its belief that the law should reflect a presumption of propriety in favor of court interpreters, the court notes that courts in general have recognized that various professionals are entitled to presumptions that they perform their duties accurately. See, e.g., Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (<HOLDING>); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 324, 102
holding that counsels total failure to conduct pretrial discovery constituted ineffective assistance holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims recognizing in ineffective assistance of counsel claims a presumption that counsels conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel