What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel when failing to call a witness at trial?

The ultimate decision not to call witnesses to testify is generally considered to be well within counsel's "full authority to manage the conduct of the [proceeding]." Taylor v. Illinois,

Page 9

484 U.S. 400, 418 (1988) ("Putting to one side the exceptional cases in which counsel is ineffective, the client must accept the consequences of the lawyer's decision . . . to decide not to put certain witnesses on the stand . . . ."); Lord v. Wood, 184 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 1999) ("Few decisions a lawyer makes draw so heavily on professional judgment as whether or not to proffer a witness at trial."). To show ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness, a habeas petitioner must show: 1) a particular witness was willing to testify, see United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 1988); 2) what their testimony would have been, see United States v. Berry, 814 F.2d 1406, 1409 (9th Cir. 1987); and 3) that their testimony would have been sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to guilt, see Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 1990).