on direct appeal also invoked the Sixth Amendment. Raising this additional ground on direct appeal, rather ed by this Court. Lance, supra, 275 Ga. at 13-14 (2). Thus, it is now barred. C. Combined Effect of Trial Counsel’s Deficiencies Above, we have commented on the prejudicial effect arising from each of trial counsel’s deficiencies that we either have found to exist or have assumed to exist, and we have found each separately not to have been significantly prejudicial. Considering now the combined effect of those deficiencies, we conclude that the absence of those deficiencies would not in reasonable probability have affected the verdict at either phase of Lance’s trial. Compare Porter v. McCollum, supra,_U. S_(III) (130 SC at 453-456). See also Holsey, supra, 281 Ga. at 812, n. 1 (<HOLDING>). III. Claims that are Barred as Previously
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 courts should be mindful of the location of witnesses and counsel in weighing the relative accessibility of the place of trial holding that the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies in defense counsels performance prejudiced the defendant in a capital trial holding that the combined effect of trial counsels deficiencies should be considered in weighing prejudice