the decisions of other jurisdictions on the matter of presenting ineffectiveness claims within a collateral proceeding. A handful of jurisdictions impose an absolute rule, similar to the rule announced in Hubbard. Most jurisdictions considering this issue, however, express a clear preference that ineffectiveness claims be raised in collateral review proceedings. For example, the federal courts have generally recognized that ineffectiveness claims are not appropriate for direct appeal, but should be raised in a collateral action. These courts recognize that exceptional circumstances may exist where the ineffectiveness is patent on the record and therefore, can be addressed on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)(<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Gambino, 788 F.2d
recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant holding that denial of effective crossexamination is constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice holding that it may not recognizing that counsels conduct may be so egregious that no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it