Ordinarily, we defer to the trial court in determining when leading questions are necessary, reviewing only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Grassrope, 342 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2003). However, because no objection was made below, we review Smith's claim for plain error.

” United States v. Grassrope, 342 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2003). Given the deferential standard afforded trial strategy and leeway provided to questioning sexual assault victims, this Court cannot conclude that the state court decision affirming the habeas court's holding that Mann failed to satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test to be “contrary to, or involve[ing] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

. But "the matter clearly falls within the area of control by the judge over the mode and order of interrogation and presentation and accordingly is phrased in words of suggestion rather than command." United States v. Grassrope, 342 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Rule 611 advisory committee's note). So, the use of leading questions is a matter left to the discretion of the district court. United States v. Nambo-Barajas, 338 F.3d 956, 962 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Butler, 56 F.3d 941, 943 (8th Cir. 1995).