Bendetti v. United States

observing that ineffective counsel may satisfy cause and prejudice requirements and distinguishing Lumpkin v. Ricketts where there was a “hollow claim” or base assertion of ineffective counsel, unsupported by testimony | "Depending upon the comprehensiveness of the [Witherspoon ] questions addressed to a potential juror, it may be possible in some instances for a court to decide that a response other than verbal is unquestionably unambiguous. We leave that question for another case...." | “Depending upon the comprehensiveness of the [Wither-spoon ] questions addressed to a potential jur- or, it may be possible in some instances for a court to decide that a response other than verbal is unquestionably unambiguous. We leave that question for another case....” | "At the heart of effective representation is the independent duty to investigate and prepare"