counsel contends should have been presented includes Yates’s daughters, son, stepmother, half sisters, brother-in-law, aunt, uncle, cousins, aunt’s sister, and school classmate. ¶73 Trial counsel was “obviously interested” in presenting testimony of family members but, after investigating that avenue, discovered that “[m]ost of Mr. Yates’ family members were understandably conflicted.” Id. Ex. A at 4. As a result, trial counsel decided not to call additional family members during the penalty phase. Id. Presenting testimony by conflicted family members, subject to cross-examination, might have prompted the prosecutor to argue that Yates had also victimized his own family through his actions. Counsel’s strategic decision is not objectively unreasonable. See Stenson, 142 Wn.2d at 741-47 (<HOLDING>). e. Future Dangerousness Investigation ¶74
holding that to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally deficient and as a result defendant was prejudiced holding counsel was not deficient in not objecting to testimony that was permissible within state rules of evidence holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument holding that failure to present evidence rebutting lack of remorse was not deficient where counsel made a substantial attempt to humanize defendant holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel