2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-7-2008 

# J ohnson v . Lehm an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2683

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J o hn s on v . L ehm an" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 401. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/401NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 2683

_____________ RO NAL D J OHNS ON,

A ppel l ant v. J OS E P H D. L E HM AN; T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF P E NNS YL VANI A; T HE

DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A C OUNT Y, A ppel l ees

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 94- cv- 07583) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

on Sept ember12, 2008

____________ B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed O ctob er 7 , 2 0 0 8 ) OP I NI ON A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge2

R o n a ld J o h n s o n f

ile d a P e titio n f

o r W ri t o f

H a b e a s C o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , co n ten d in g th a t th e a ss ista n c e o f h is c o u n se l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e d u rin g h is C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a murde rtr i al , atw hi ch J ohns on w as convi ct ed of murde r o f th e f ir s t d e g re e , c ri m in a l c o n s p ir a c ya n d p o s s e s s io n o f a n in s tru m e n t o f

c ri m e . S p e c if ica lly , Jo h n so n a rg u e s th a t h is tria l atto rn e yf a iled to c o n d u c t a r e a so n a b le i nves t i gat i on and fa i l ed t o pr es entt he t es t i m onyof tw o w i t nes s es w ho w oul d have corr obor at ed J ohns on’ s al i bi defe ns e. A M agi s t r at e J udge i s s ued a r epor tr ecomm endi ng deni al and di s m i s s al of J ohns on’ s pet i t i on, det erm i ni ng thatal t hough J ohns on’ s tr i al c o u n se l re p re se n tatio n w a s d e f icie n t, tria l co u n se l’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s n o t p re

ju d icia l to J o h n s o n b e c a u s e a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y w o u l d n o th a v e d e t e r m i n e d th a th e w a s n o tg u i l t y, ev en w ith the s u p p o rt ing test im o n yo f th e tw o u n ca ll ed w itn esse s. T h e D istri ct C o u rt appr oved and a dopt ed the M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on, as su p p lem en ted b yit s m em o ran d u m , an d issue d an o rde r de n y ing an d d ism issi n g Jo h n so n ’s p eti ti o n . F o r th e f

o ll o w ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s and pr ocee di ngs i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w e nee d onl ybr i efl yr eci t e the fa ct s . T he t es t i m onyat t r i al es t abl i s hed thatt he vi ct i m , J os eph G ol ds by , w ho w as s el l i ng cr ack c ocai ne, w as s hot a n d k ill e d o n M a rc h 1 , 1 9 9 0 . Jo h n so n a p p ro a c h e d th e v ictim ’s c a r w ith a n u n k n o w n m a le and fe m al e and e ngaged the vi ct i m i n drug- r el at ed conve r s at i on. T w o ey ew i t nes s es t o t he3

i nci dent , D arr y l A l exande rand M ark J acks on, t es t i fi ed thattheyknew J ohns on and det ai l ed hi s i nvol vementi n t he murde r . J acks on al s o t es t i fi ed thatJ ohns on appr oache d hi m s ever al day s aft ert he murde rand t ol d hi m t o “be c ar eful w haty ou s ay . ” J ohns on t es t i fi ed and c al l ed R i char d D uncan a s a w i t nes s t o es t abl i s h an al i bi defe ns e. J ohns on and D uncan t es t i fi ed thattheyw er e aw ayfr om the s cene of the cr i m e, t hatt heyw er e i n a ca rget t i ng hi gh on nar cot i cs and w er e unaw ar e of G ol ds by ’ s m ur der u n til th e yw e re s o a d v is e d b ya m a n n a m e d J a m e s S m ith , a ls o k n o w n a s “ S e e d .” R obi n J ohns on and D err i ck H ol m es , tw o addi t i onal w i t nes s es pr es entatthe s cene of the murde r , gave s t at ement s t o t he pol i ce s hor t l yaft erthe dat e of the cr i m e. A ppel l ant J ohns on’ s t r i al couns el r evi ew ed thes e s t at ement s , butdi d noti nt ervi ew R obi n J ohns on or H ol m es and di d notcal l t hem as w i t nes s es attr i al . T he crux of J ohns on’ s i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im is th a t th e tes tim o n yo f R o b in Jo h n so n a n d H o lm e s w o u ld have s uppor t ed hi s al i bi defe ns e, and thati tw as unr eas onabl e and pr ej udi ci al for J ohns on’ s t r i al couns el t o fai l t o i nt ervi ew and ca l l thes e tw o w i t nes s es aft err evi ew i ng th e irp o lic e s ta te m e n ts . W e ar e t o deci de the s ol e i s s ue of w hetherJ ohns on w as deni ed compet entcouns el guar ant eed byt he Si xt h A m endmentbeca us e hi s l aw y erfai l ed t o i nt ervi ew orcal l D err i ck H ol m es and R obi n J ohns on, t w o ey ew i t nes s es w ho w oul d have s uppor t ed J ohns on’ s al i biT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254. T hi s C our thas 1 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291, 2253. J ohns on’ s fede r al habea s pet i t i on w as pendi ng pr i ort o t he ena ctm entof the A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ctof 19 96 ( “ A ED PA ” ) , s o thi s c a s e mus tbe de c i de d b ythe l a w a s i te xi s t e d b e fo r e A ED PA beca m e ef

fec t i ve. See Li ndh v. M urphy , 521 U . S. 320, 322- 323 ( 1997) ; B uehl v. V aughn, 166 F. 3d 163, 169 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . U nderpr e- A E D PA l aw , i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n se l cla im s p re se n t m ix e d q u e stio n s o f law a n d f

a c t. B u e h l, 16 6 F .3 d a t 1 6 9 . S tate cour tfi ndi ngs of fa ctar e pr es um ed corr ecti f theyar e fa i r l ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, but w hethercouns el w as eff ect i ve i s s ubj ectt o de novo r evi ew . I d.

4 d e f e n s e a t h is m u rd e r t ri a l. 1 II. I n St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , the C our ts etfor t h a tw o- pr ong t es tt hata pet i t i onerm us ts at i s fybefor e a c our tw i l l fi nd thatcouns el di d notpr ovi de ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce . U n d er S tr icklan d , a p eti ti o n er m u st sho w (1) tha t his att o rne y ’s re p re se n tatio n f

e ll b e lo w a n o b

jec tiv e sta n d a rd o f

re a so n a b len e ss ; an d (2 ) th a t th e re e x ists a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , barr i ng couns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . I d. at687. T h e M ag istrate Ju d g e a n d the D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that a re aso n ab le j u ry w oul d nothave de t erm i ned thatJ ohns on w as notgui l t y , even w i t h t he s uppor t i ng t es t i m onyof R obi n J ohns on and D err i ck H ol m es . W e agr ee. E ven i f J ohns on’ s tr i al couns el fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , hi s defi ci encydi d not p re ju d ic e J o h n s o n . Id . T o sati sfythe s ec o n d p ron g o f th e S tr icklan d test , a p eti ti o n er m u st sho w that there i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng5

w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . I d. at694. “A r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yi s a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci ent t o underm i ne conf

i dence i n t he out come” of the pr ocee di ng. I d. T he M agi s t r at e J udge not ed thatt he evi dence agai ns tJ ohns on w as notoverw hel m i ng, beca us e the t es t i m onyof t he C om m onw eal t h’ s t w o m ai n ey ew i t nes s es , D arr y l A l exande rand M ark J acks on, w as c o n tra d icte d b yth e ir e a rlier p o lice sta tem e n ts th a t th e yc o u ld n o t id e n tifyth e c u lp rits in t he vi ct i m ’ s s hoot i ng. B utJ ohns on’ s al i bi w as notful l ycr edi bl e ei t her . A l t hough the t es t i m onyof R obi n J ohns on and D err i ck H ol m es w oul d have f urni s hed s om e s uppor tof Jo h n so n ’s a lib i d e f

e n se , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e re is n o re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hatt hei rt es t i m onyw oul d have c r eat ed a r eas onabl e doubti n t he mi nds of the j ur or s . T w o ey ew i t nes s es t o t he i nci dent–A l exande rand J acks on–t es t i fi ed thattheyknew J o h n s o n a n d d e s c ri b e d in s p e c if ic d e ta il J o h n s o n ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e m u rd e r. N ei t herR obi n J ohns on norD err i ck H ol m es w er e ey ew i tnes s es t o t he s hoot i ng. N ei t her provided Joh nson w i t h an affirm at i ve ali bi, as di d D un can, the d efen se w i t ness cal l ed att r i al . R ather , t he t es t i m onyof H ol m es and R obi n J ohns on m er el yw oul d have e sta b lish e d th a t th e yd id n o t se e Jo h n so n w h ile th e yw e re p re se n t b u y in g d ru g s. A t trial, t he C om m onw eal t h came for t h w i t h ey ew i t nes s es t o t he ki l l i ng w ho s peci fi cal l ys aw J ohns on s t andi ng out s i de the vi ct i m ’ s cari n t he pr oces s of att empt i ng t o fi r e hi s gun at t he vi ct i m . N o w i t nes s es came forw ar d t o al l ege thatthe per s on at t empt i ng t o fi r e hi s gun i n t hi s m at t erw as s om eone othert han J ohns on. A tbes t , the t es t i m onyof H ol m es and R o b in Jo h n so n w o u ld sh o w that theyd id n o t see Jo h n so n in the b ri ef ti m e the yw ere6

t her e. I n vi ew of the det ai l ed ey ew i t nes s t es t i m onyt o t he cr i m e pr es ent ed attr i al , s uch tes tim o n yd o e s n o t cr e a te a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e ju ryw o u ld h a v e d o u b ted its g u ilty v e rd ic t. ****** W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons r ai s ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is n e c e s s a ry. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt w ill b e a f f ir m e d .