I've read all of the legal opinions, here and elsewhere, as well as researched some cases, but honestly, I do not see how this particular defense cannot be deemed "ineffective". I cannot imagine a less effective defense. Regardless of the experience of CM, for instance, or the credentials of DS, this was a horribly assembled defense, made no sense at all and more often than not, her own lawyers pointed out incriminating facts to the witnesses. To watch this case with an open mind, one would could be forgiven in concluding that her defense was "throwing" the case. I often felt like I was watching an athlete intentionally losing a game or shaving points to cover the spread.
As much as I hate the idea of another trial three years from now I will lose some respect for the system if this defense is deemed effective.
JMO