the error involving its admission, a point that variations of the hypothetical will demonstrate. Let the dissent’s hypothetical be Scenario One. Scenario Two is exactly the same trial and evidence. Except in this scenario the testimony about the fingerprint on the murder weapon is inadmissible but comes into evidence anyway because defense counsel negligently fails to object even though he is present at all times. It is beyond dispute that in those circumstances reversal is not automatic but occurs only if the defendant can show a reasonable probability of a different result if counsel had objected as all reasonable attorneys would have. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 2068; see also Bates v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 768 F.3d 1278, 1300 n.9 (11th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Dorsey v. Chapman, 262 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th
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 holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence holding that any deficiency in counsels failure to object to alleged hearsay testimony that repeated statement of witness regarding identity of murder perpetrator did not prejudice defendant and thus was not ineffective assistance when testimony was cumulative of other eyewitness testimony holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive