to speak to You. Defendant was never given the opportunity to deliver his statement to the jury. B. The Court correctly holds that counsel’s failure to fulfill her responsibility to fully inform defendant of his right to allocution, and failure to discuss with defendant the pros and cons of exercising the right as well as the particular purpose and limits of an allocution statement, was deficient. See ante at 278, 736 A.2d at 493. The Court’s conclusion that defendant was not prejudiced as a result, however, is founded on several crucial analytical errors. As an initial matter, it is worth noting that the Court vacillates between holding that defendant’s allocution would not have “sub stantially affected” and would not have “substantially altered” the jury deliberations. Compare ibid, (<HOLDING>) with id. at 279, 736 A.2d at 494 (holding that
holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred holding that hearing officer had no obligation under 38 cfr  3103c2 to advise appellant as to physicians statement because that statement would not have helped prove the claim  that is that statement would not have provided a nexus with the veterans service holding that the district court was required to give a supplemental jury instruction where the original instructions did not address whether there could be a conspiracy comprised of a single defendant and an undercover officer a legal issue that was key to the jurys deliberations holding that a failure to inform the defendant of the minimum possible sentence meant that the defendant did not fully understand the consequences of his plea and his rights were therefore automatically substantially affected holding that a statement of remorse by defendant would not have substantially affected the jurys deliberations