James S. Price v. Barbara Lewien, Warden

In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) the issues raised did not require a "cumulative error analysis" for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Courts of Appeals are split on whether Strickland's silence bans "cumulative error analysis" in habeas corpus cases.

1. Does Strickland v. Washington's silence on "cumulative error analysis" for ineffective assistance of counsel claims impose a ban on applying that analysis in habeas corpus cases?

2. Where a Defendant has faced two jury trials, one WITHOUT ineffective assistance of counsel ending in a "deadlocked" mistrial, and the other WITH ineffective assistance of counsel ending in a conviction, is the actual fact of different outcomes sufficient to meet the "actual prejudice" standard from Brecht v. Abramson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), as well as the "reasonable probability" of a different outcome standard from Strickland? The Double Jeopardy protection of the 5th Amendment prohibits a second trial of a Defendant unless a "manifest necessity" exists for ending the first trial. The prosecutor bears the heavy burden of proving the "manifest necessity" of a "genuine deadlock" before subjecting a Defendant to a second criminal trial.

3. Does a trial court's refusing a Defendant's request to poll the entire jury panel, creating a presumptive record of a purported "genuine deadlock", improperly shift the burden to rebut the "manifest necessity" for a second trial to the Defendant?