reported, to the office of the State’s Attorney.” 2 . The officer who registered S. Williams as a confidential paid informant testified that because the identities of confidential informants were not centrally computerized, S. Williams’s status as a police informant, while known to some, was not known to all police officers in the Eastern District 3 . The Cou 230 (1989) (in regards to newly discovered evidence, favoring a standard that falls between "probable,” which is less demanding than "beyond a reasonable doubt,” and "might” which is less stringent than probable, and establishing that the inquiry is whether there is a "possibility that the verdict of the trier of fact would have been affected”) (emphasis added); Bowers v. State, 320 Md. 416, 425-427, 578 A.2d 734, 738-739 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Gross v. State, 371 Md. 334, 347, 809 A.2d
holding petitioner demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice by proving a claim under strickland holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test holding that in defining the reasonable probability language in strickland with more precision substantial possibility describes the prejudice standard in strickland holding that any reduction in sentence constitutes substantial prejudice for purposes of strickland analysis holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice