supra, Bowling first claimed ineffective assistance in the trial itself. Between the guilt and penalty phases, Bowling sought to have his counsel removed because Bowling felt they were unprepared. Bowling claimed that he did not have ample chance to explain the facts of the case to his attorneys because he had “not spent an hour, total, with any of them from day one.” J.A. at 4921 (Trial Tr.). The few times that they did talk, Bowling claims, he was interrupted and ignored. While Bowling’s attorneys did not put on a single witness, Bowling claimed that there were numerous witnesses who could have been calle Bowling cites is alarming, and courts have granted habeas relief under such conditions. See, e.g., Harris By and Through Ramseyer v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1436, 1438-39 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). We are concerned, however, by the fact that
holding that where a standin attorney was unfamiliar with the case denied that the defendant was his client and did nothing on the defendants behalf he did not function as counsel holding that strickland was violated when the defendants counsel among many other deficiencies met with his client in a capital case for less than two hours holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding that the prejudice prong of strickland was not met in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutors misstatement of law where the trial court properly instructed the jury holding in a noncapital case that strickland was not violated when the defendants attorney did not interview the defendant until the night before trial and then for only thirty to fortyfive minutes