Lynn, а lаwful permаnent resident оf the United States, was invоlved in a heated argument with her partner in which wоrds came to blows, and she was eventually arrested after neighbors called the police to report the domestic disturbance. Unfortunately, shortly after being released on bail for this initial offense, she returned home where she promptly got into another altercation and was arrested again. After a brief investigation following the second arrest, the local prosecutor charged Lynn with two counts of felony domestic assault and successfully argued to have her detained pending trial. As her trial date approached, Lynn's appointed counsel and the deputy prosecutor handling her case met to discuss a potential plea agreement. The prosecutor offered to reduce the charges to simple assault in exchange for Lynn's guilty plea. Lynn discussed this with her attorney, and she was informed that she would probably serve six months on the reduced charges, and as much as two years on the felony counts, but that there was otherwise no difference for her to consider. Unwilling to admit her guilt, Lynn rejected the offer and decided to take her chances at trial. Unfortunately, her gamble was a bad one. At the close of the case, the jury spent only two hours deliberating before returning guilty verdicts on both counts. At her sentencing hearing, the state trial court judge reviewed the jury's findings and sentenced Lynn to two years (the statutorily recommended term) for each offense. The judge then made the further determination that each count was a separate and independent offense, and he therefore invoked a provision in the sentencing statute that allowed him to order that her sentences be served consecutively. To make matters worse Lynn was informed that, due to her lawful permanent resident status, her conviction would provide the basis for her removal from the country after serving out her sentence in prison. If Lynn were to challenge her conviction as being tainted by the ineffective assistance of counsel, her best argument would be that:
Did the triаl cоurt cоrrectly prevent the intrоduction into evidence of Byron’s confession?