A defendant can rebut a presumption of effective assistance of counsel in the context of jury selection only by demonstrating that (1) defense counsel was so inattentive or indifferent during the jury selection process that the failure to remove a prospective juror was not the product of a conscious choice or preference, (2) that a prospective juror expressed bias so strong or unequivocal that no plausible countervailing subjective preference could justify failure to remove that juror, or (3) that there is some other specific evidence clearly demonstrating that counsel’s choice was not plausibly justified.