even if counsel’s performance had fallen below an objective standard of reasonableness, Strickland’s prejudice prong would not be satisfied. As discussed earlier, the evidence against Sheron was very strong. Even with the deficiencies alleged by Sheron, there is not a “reasonable probability” that the end result would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance at trial are denied. 2. As to the Sufficiency of the Evidence for Depraved Indifference Murder Under the Due Process Clause of the of the Fourteenth Amendment and relevant Supreme Court law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to convict a defendant of a crime. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 362, 90 S.Ct.
holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases holding that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the constitution holding that conviction of a crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime holding that clear and convincing evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to impose sanctions in disciplinary proceedings holding that failure of trial court to instruct jury that state must prove beyond reasonable doubt killing was not committed in heat of passion required reversal of murder conviction even though there was general charge that state was required to prove each element of offenses beyond reasonable doubt