well in the structured environment of a prison, and it also likely would have undermined the credibility of Lee’s cottage mother, whom counsel testified, and our review of the trial transcript shows, was a strong mitigation witness for Lee. Further, the information contained in these docuipents is no more atrocious or adverse than that contained in the affidavit testimony, and, as discussed above, the omission of that testimony did not prejudice Lee. G. Combined Effect of Individual Ineffective Assistance Claims Considering the combined effect of the deficiencies assumed in the discussion above, we conclude that those deficiencies would not in all reasonable probability have changed the outcome of the sentencing phase of Lee’s trial. See Schofield v. Holsey, supra, 281 Ga. at 811, n. 1 (<HOLDING>). Case No. S09X1345 III. Proportionality of
holding that the combined effect of trial counsels various professional deficiencies should be considered holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered holding that errors not raised before the trial court will not generally be considered on appeal holding that the combined effect of trial counsels deficiencies should be considered in weighing prejudice holding that although neither of the trial courts errors when considered in isolation were necessarily sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial the cumulative effect of the errors created sufficient prejudice to deny defendant a fair trial