years, Harris ... rejected the deal.” Dyer, 287 Ga. at 140. Based on her prior felony convictions, appellant contends that Harris was subject to recidivist punishment and would never get out of jail if convicted of the victim’s murder. And he contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to cross-examine Harris about this recidivist punishment and that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this ineffectiveness issue on appeal. For purposes of this claim, we assume that it would have been error for the trial court to not allow trial counsel to cross-examine Harris about the possibility of recidivist punishment and that trial counsel performed deficiently in not pursuing that line of cross-examination. But see Jackson v. State, 294 Ga. 34, 37 (751 SE2d 63) (2013) (<HOLDING>). Having presumed deficient performance, we
holding that accused has right to crossexamine witness on issue of a witness potential bias that stemmed from the fact that the witness had instituted a civil action for damages against the defendant arising from the crime charged holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection holding that where a states witness has not gained a concrete benefit for his testimony by way of a deal with the state and the accused is permitted broad scope in exposing the potential for bias in the witnesss testimony the trial court did not err in not allowing the accused to crossexamine the witness about possible recidivist penalties that he faced holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that if the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable