like the currency, depreciate through over-issue. The mind of an appellate judge is habitually receptive to the suggestion that a lower court committed an error. But receptiveness declines as the number of assigned errors increases. Multiplicity hints at lack of confidence in any one.''). 44 . See Jackson v. Shanks, 143 F.3d 1313, 1320 (10th Cir.1998) (denying relief under Strickland because "[gjenerally, the decision whether to call a witness rests within the sound discretion of trial counsel.”); United States v. Snyder, 787 F.2d 1429, 1432 (10th Cir.1986) (denying relief under Strickland because “[w]hether to call a particular witness is a tactical decision, and, thus, a matter of discretion for trial counsel.”). 45 . See Snow v. Sirmons, 474 F.3d 693, 724 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Parker v. Scott, 394 F.3d 1302, 1321 (10th
holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the failure of defense counsel to object to erroneous punishment charge authorizing an illegal sentence is ineffective assistance of counsel holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate