FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 8, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13112

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 96 -007 68 -C V -A -N W I L L I A M L . S U L L I V A N ,
P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A M E S D E L O A C H , T R O Y K I N G , A tto rn e y G e n e r a l o f

th e S ta te o f

A lab a m a , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 8, 2006)Honora ble Adria n G. Duplantier , United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of * L ouisiana, sitting by

designation. Rene e ’snameis spe lle d v ari ou s w ays througho ut t here c ord. F or

sim pli c ity, w ere fer to 1 her a s “Renee ” throughout this opi nion. 2 B ef ore H U L L and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D U P L A N T IE R , D i stri ctJudg e. * H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e: W i l l i am L . S ul l i van (“ S ul l i van”), an A l abam a pri soner s ervi ng a l i fe s e nt e nc e f

orm ur de r , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habeas corpus pet i t i on . In hi s § 22 54 pet i t i on , S ul l i van argued t hathe re ce i ved in ef fe ctiv e a ss istan ce o f trial co u n se l b ec au se h is co u n se l failed to ca ll S u ll iv an ’s da ught e r , R e ne e S ul l i va n ( “ R e ne e ” ) , t o t e s t i f y a thi s m ur de rtr i a l . R e ne e w a s f i ve 1 ye ar s ol d atthe t i m e of the m urder and has gi ven con fl i ct i ng st at em ent s. W e nee d n o t a d d r e s s th e p e r f

o r m a n c e p r o n g o f

S u lliv a n ’s in e f

f e c tiv e - a s s is ta n c e c la im be c a us e S ul l i va n ha s s o c l e a r l y f a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h the r e qui r e d pr e j udi c e pr ong of h i s c l a i m. Th u s , a f

t e rr e v i e w a n d o r a l a r g u me n t , w e a f f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D In M ar ch 19 90 , S ul l i van w as conv i ct ed of the A pri l 19 89 m urder of M i chae l S m i th (“ S m i th”). A tthe t i m e of S m i th’ s dea th, the defendantS ul l i van and hi s w i fe J a ni c e S ul l i va n ( “ J a ni c e ” ) w e r e s e pa r a t e d. T he vi c t i m S m i th w or ke d f orde f e nda nt S ul l i van’ s r oo fi ng com pany and h ad l i ved w i th S ul l i van and Ja ni ce for ashort t i m e. D ef

endantS ul l i van b egan t o suspectthatJa ni ce and S m i th w er e3

rom ant i ca l l y i nv ol ved. S ul l i van t hen k i cked S m i th o utof thei r hom e, and S ul l i van re peat edl y threa t ened S m i th. O n A pri l 21 , 19 89 , the defendantS ul l i van d i sc ov er ed J a n ic e a n d S m ith to g e th e rin a p u b lic p la c e a n d s tab b e d S m ith w ith a s c r e w d r iv e r . W i thi n the w e e k, J a ni c e obt a i ne d a r e s tr a i ni ng or de ra ga i ns tS ul l i va n a nd c o m m e n c e d d iv o r c e p r o c e e d in g s . O n e w itn e s s te s tif ie d th a t S u lliv a n a d m itte d to st abbi ng S m i th w i th a sc re w dri ver on A pri l 21 and t hataf t erdo i ng so, S ul l i van s ta te d th a t n e x t tim e h e w o u ld k ill S m ith . J us ts i x da y s l a t e r , on A pr i l 27, 1989, J a ni c e a nd S m i th w e r e t oge the ra tthe ho m e of K i tty S ul l i van, w ho w as Ja ni ce ’ s s i st er -i n-l aw . T he defendantS ul l i van c a m e to K itty ’s h o m e in h is tru c k . T h is tim e S u lliv a n h a d a k n if e a n d r e p e a te d ly s t a bbe d S m i th w i th the kni f e . S ul l i va n the n l e f

ti n hi s truc k. S m i th di e d a tthe s c e ne e ve n be f

or e the pa r a m e di c s a rr i ve d. A t tr ia l, d e f

e n d a n t S u lliv a n a d m itte d th a t h e c a m e to K itty ’s h o m e o n A p r il 2 7 , th a t h e h a d a k n if

e w ith h im w h e n h e a rr iv e d , th a t h e o p e n e d th e b la d e o n h is kn i fe af t erhe go tthere , and t hathe st abbed S m i th m ul t i pl e t i m es w i th h i s kni fe , ki l l i ng hi m . S ul l i van argued, how ever , thathi s s t abbi ng and k i l l i ng of S m i th w as i n sel f- defe nse. S ul l i van cl ai m ed thatS m i th j um ped o n h i m fi rs t . H ow ever , S ul l i va n a dm i t s he ne ve rs a w a kni f e on S m i th. F ur the r , no one , i nc l udi ng the pa r a m e di c s , the pol i c e , orne i ghbor s , f ound a kni f

e on S m i th orne a rS m i th’ s body4

atthe sc ene. W e de s c r i be i n de t a i l the tr i a l t e s t i m ony a boutthe e ve nt s of A pr i l 27, 1989, a nd the n e xpl a i n w hy S ul l i va n ha s e s t a bl i s he d no pr e j udi c e f r om R e ne e ’ s not t e s t i f y i ng. A . K i t t y’ s Te s t i m o ny T he m ur de roc c urr e d a tthe hom e of K i tty S ul l i va n, w ho t e s t i f i e d f orthe st at e a ttri al . K i tty S ul l i van t es t i fi ed thatthe defendantS ul l i van and hi s w i fe Ja ni ce w e r e s e p a r a te d a n d th a t J a n ic e a n d S m ith h a d b e e n s e e in g e a c h o th e r . K itty t es t i fi ed thaton the day S m i th w as ki l l ed, Ja ni ce and S m i th w er e i n h erbackya rd w hen t he defendantS ul l i van arri ved ather hou se . K i tty i nstruct ed her daugh t er K im , w h o w a s 1 6 y e a r s o ld , to g o a n d te ll J a n ic e a n d S m ith th a t S u lliv a n w a s th e r e . T he defendantS ul l i van fi rs tca m e i nsi de the ho use. S ul l i van asked K i tty w here Ja ni ce w as , and she i nd i ca t ed Ja ni ce w as ou t si de. K i tty s t at ed thatS ul l i van w al ked t o the ba c k doora nd J a ni c e m e tS ul l i va n a tthe ba c k door . K i tty s a w J a ni c e a nd S ul l i van t al k atthe back do or bu tdi d n otre ca l l the conv er sa t i on . K i tty t es t i fi ed tha tR e ne e , J a ni c e a nd S ul l i va n’ s f i ve - y e a r - ol d daught e r , w a s a l s o s t a ndi ng a tthe b a c k d o o ra s J a n ic e a n d S u lliv a n ta lk e d . K i tty w e ntt o he rde n t o t e l l he rboy f r i e nd, D a vi d H y a tt , the r e m i ghtbe troub l e. Ja ni ce then cam e i n the ho use a nd st at ed thatS ul l i van and S m i th w er e5

f i ght i ng. K i tty s e nthe rs on ne xtdoort o c a l l the pol i c e , a nd J a ni c e “ gr a bbe d the b a b y [ R e n e e ] a n d ru n to m y d a u g h te r ’s [ K im ’s ] r o o m in th e h o u s e .” K itty w e n t to the f r ontdoora nd s a w S m i th w a l ki ng a c r os s the s tr e e t . K i tty a l s o s a w the d e f e n d a n t S u lliv a n c o m in g o u t o f th e b a c k y a r d w ith b lo o d o n h is s h ir t. K itty w al ked w i th S ul l i van t o h i s truck, w here he apol og i ze d for w hathapp ened ather ho use butst at ed thatS m i th w as “ go i ng t o l ea rn no tt o m es s w i th” S ul l i van’ s w i fe J a n ic e . A s the de f

e nda ntS ul l i va n dr ove of f , S ul l i va n t ol d S m i th tha the w a s not f i ni s he d w i th hi m . I n the m e a nt i m e , S m i th ha d f a l l e n dow n, a nd K i tty t ol d hi m the p a r a m e d ic s w e r e o n th e w a y . B. K i m ’ s Te s t i m o ny K i m S ul l i va n, K i tty ’ s 16- y e a r - ol d da ught e r , t e s t i f i e d t o appr oxi m a t e l y the sa m e s equence of event s a s K i tty. K i m w entt o the backyar d t o t el l Ja ni ce that S ul l i van w as there . K i m st at ed thatJa ni ce then fol l ow ed her i n the back do or, w h e r e th e y m e t th e d e f

e n d a n t S u lliv a n . J a n ic e to ld S u lliv a n th a t th e y w e r e a t K itty an d D av id ’s h o u se an d n o t t o g o in th e b ac k ya rd , an d S u ll iv an re sp o n d ed , “ I d o n ’t ca re w ho se ho use w e’ re at . ” K i m w e ntba c k i nt o the hous e a nd di d notw i tne s s the s t a bbi ng. K i m di d not s e e S ul l i va n orS m i th unt i l the y ha d l e f tthe ba c ky a r d. K i m the n w e ntout s i de a nd6

s a w th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t S u lliv a n h a d b lo o d o n h is s h ir t a n d a k n if e in h is r ig h t h a n d . S u lliv a n ’s k n if

e h a d ap p r o x im a te ly a th r e e - in c h b la d e a n d h a d b lo o d o n it. S ul l i van t ol d K i m , “ Y ou t el l Ja ni ce I e nj oyed her bei ng w i th m e. ” K i m then cr osse d the stre ett o w here S m i th w as and o bserved S ul l i van d ri vi ng aw ay . B ef ore dr i vi ng a w a y , the de f

e nda ntS ul l i va n poi nt e d hi s f i nge ra tS m i th a nd s t a t e d tha the w a s n o t d o n e w ith h im y e t. K i m di d n otno t i ce any w ou nd s on the defendantS ul l i van. T w o p ol i ce offi ce rs t es t i fi ed thatw hen S ul l i van turned h i m se l f i n t o the po l i ce the day a ft er S m i th di e d, S ul l i va n ha d m i norc ut s ora br a s i ons on hi s f a c e a nd e l bow , brui s i ng on hi s a r m , a nd a s c r a t c h a c r os s hi s s t om a c h. T hr ough W . R . H ue ttof the M on t go m ery P ol i ce D epar tm ent , the S t at e a dm i tt ed ph ot og raph s t aken of S ul l i van by H uettw hen S ul l i van turned h i m se l f i n the day a ft erthe i nci dent . T he pi ctures d ep i ct ed a b ru i sed area o n S u l l i v an ’ s u p p er arm , a sm al l , th i n scrat ch acro ss S ul l i va n’ s s t om a c h, a nd a s c r ape on the l e f ts i de of S ul l i va n’ s f

a c e . D e t e c t i ve S h a w n S m ith a c k n o w le d g e d th a t S u lliv a n a ls o h a d a n a b r a s io n o n h is r ig h t e lb o w . C . Sm i t h’ s W o unds A l tho ug h the defendantS ul l i van h ad on l y m i no r c ut s a nd l ef tthe sc ene, S m i th w as m ort al l y w ou nd ed by S ul l i van and di ed atthe sc ene. D r. Ja m es L a u r id s o n ( “D r . L a u r id s o n ” ) , th e s ta te m e d ic a l e x a m in e r , c o n d u c te d th e p o s t-Th eph oto gra ph s o f S mith’ s w ound s a

rein t here c ord a

nd c le arly sh owseven s e ri ou s, 2 larg e, g apingstab wounds, extensive bleeding , plus mult iple other cuts, abrasions, and br uises. In c ontra st, theph oto gra

ph s o f S ull iva

n s ho w n o cutsand

on ly on esc ratc h th at is so min or a s to be hardly visible. 7 m ort em exam i nat i on of S m i th. D r. L auri dson t es t i fi ed thatS m i th h ad se ven seri o u s st ab w o u n d s an d ab o u tt en o th er, l ess si g n i fi can tw o u n d s, i n cl u d i n g cu t s, abra si on s, and b rui se s. T hrou gh D r. L auri dson , the st at e a dm i tt ed i nt o evi dence ph ot og raph s of S m i th’ s w ou nd s, and D r. L auri dson t es t i fi ed abou tthe depi ct ed w ou nd s. F or exam pl e, D r. L auri dson desc ri bed “ a very l ar ge gapi ng w ou nd ov er th e ri g h tsi d e o f th e ch est , ” w h i ch “ ex t en d s i n t o th e ch estcav i ty an d cau ses a w ound t o the r i ghtl ung. ” D r . L a ur i ds on a l s o de s c r i be d a l a r ge , gapi ng w ound r i ght un der the ri gh tarm pi t , and a m ore s up er fi ci al w ou nd i n thatsa m e a re a, w hi ch e xt e nde d i nt o the m us c l e s of the c he s tw a l l . H e the n de s c r i be d a nothe rs t a b w ound j us tunde rthe l e f

ta r m pi t , w hi c h e nt e r e d the l e f tl ung a nd l e f

ts i de of the he a r ta nd resu l t ed i n a si g n i fi can tam o u n to f b l eed i n g i n t o th e l eftch est . D r. L au ri d so n al so d e s c r ib e d a n u m b e ro f

w o u n d s o n S m ith ’s b a c k , in c lu d in g o n e s tab w o u n d , a “la r g e g ap in g s tab w o u n d a c r o s s th e s id e o f h is le f t th ig h ,” a n d tw o s tab w o u n d s in the ri gh tel bo w ar ea . 2 D r. L auri dson st at ed thatthe cause of S m i th’ s dea th w as m ul t i pl e s t ab w ounds . D r . L a ur i ds on s t a t e d tha ti tw a s i m pos s i bl e t o s a y e xa c t l y how the part i cul ari nj uri es occurre d, bu tthatsom e s ee m ed defensi ve, m ea ni ng thatthey8

w e r e i nc urr e d a s a r e s ul tof S m i th’ s de f

e ns i ve pos tur e . H e a dm i tt e d tha tthe w o u n d s p o s s ib ly c o u ld h a v e b e e n in f lic te d a s tw o in d iv id u a ls r o lle d o n th e g r o u n d . H ow ever , D r. L auri dson st at ed S m i th’ s w ou nd s w er e unl i kel y t o h ave been caused a c c i de nt a l l y . D r . L a ur i ds on a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha t , i n l i ghtof

the num be rof

w ounds an d th e d i rect i o n s an d p ath w ays o f th e cu t s, i tw as p o ssi b l e b u t“ h i g h l y u n l i k el y” thatS m i th’ s w ou nd s w er e c ause d b y tussl i ng betw ee n tw o p eopl e, as op po se d t o an in te n tio n a l s tab b in g . D . S m i th H ad N o K n i fe B e f o r e d is c u s s in g th e d e f

e n d a n t S u lliv a n ’s v e r s io n o f th e e v e n ts , it is not e w or thy tha tthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tS m i th ha d a kni f e on hi m on the da y of hi s m ur de r . O f

f i c e r s , pa r a m e di c s , a nd a ne xtdoorne i ghbort e s t i f i e d t o s e c ur i ng th e c r im e s c e n e a n d b o d y , a n d n o n e o f th e m f o u n d a k n if

e o re v e n a k n if

e s h e a th o n S m ith . K itty a ls o te s tif ie d th a t s h e d id n o t s e e a k n if e o n S m ith th a t d a y . F u r th e r , a s d e ta ile d b e lo w , e v e n S u lliv a n h im s e lf te s tif ie d th r e e tim e s th a t h e d id nots e e a kni f

e on S m i th. E. Sul l i v a n’ s Tr i a l Te s t i m o ny S ul l i van t es t i fi ed thatS m i th h ad w orked for and li ved w i th h i m bu thad m ove d f r om the S ul l i va n hom e a f e w m onths pr i ort o A pr i l 27, 1989. S ul l i van b e c a m e s u s p ic io u s o f

J a n ic e a n d S m ith ’s r e la tio n s h ip in F e b ru a ry 1 9 8 9 .9

T he de f e nda ntS ul l i va n a dm i tt e d tha the us ua l l y c a rr i e d a s m a l l kni f e a nd h a d a k n if

e a t K itty ’s h o u s e o n A p r il 2 7 , 1 9 8 9 . S ul l i va n f ur the ra dm i tt e d tha the ha d f oughtw i th othe rm e n ove rJ a ni c e i n the pa s t . I n one s uc h i nc i de nti n 1975, w hen S ul l i van l earned thatJa ni ce w as havi ng an af fa i r w i th ano ther m an, S ul l i van att ac ked t he m an w i th a C ok e bot t l e a nd cuthi s throat ; ho w ever , S ul l i van al l eged tha tthe m a n ha d run ove rS ul l i va n w i th a c a re a r l i e ri n the da y , a nd tha tw a s the r e a l m ot i va t i on f

orthe a s s a ul t . S ul l i va n a l s o a dm i tt e d tha the ha d a s s a ul t e d the s a m e m a n upon l e a rni ng tha the w a s a ga i n ha vi ng a n a f f a i rw i th J a ni c e i n 1979 or 19 80 , bu tal l eged thatthe m an had at t ac ked h i m ea rl i eri n the day. S ul l i van further a c know l e dge d tha the m a y ha ve m a de thr e a t s a ga i ns tS m i th, butt e s t i f i e d tha the n e v e rin te n d e d to k ill S m ith a n d d id n o t m e a n a n y s ta te m e n ts th a t h e d id in te n d to ki l l S m i th. A s t o the i nci dentthe w ee k b ef ore S m i th’ s dea th, S ul l i van a c k n o w le d g e d s tab b in g S m ith w ith a s c r e w d r iv e r , b u t h e c la im e d th a t S m ith thr e a t e ne d a nd r a n a thi m . T hus , the de f e nda ntS ul l i va n a c know l e dge d a tt a c ki ng a n d a s s a u ltin g J a n ic e ’s v a r io u s b o y f r ie n d s p r io rto A p r il 2 7 , 1 9 8 9 , b u t c la im e d h is a tta c k s o n h e rb o y f

r ie n d s w e r e b e c a u s e th e y e ith e rth r e a te n e d o ra s s a u lte d h im ea rl i er . A s t o the event s of A pri l 27 , 19 89 , S ul l i van t es t i fi ed thathe and Jani ce w er e pl anni ng t o m ee t . W hen S ul l i van w entt o h i s m other- i n-l aw ’ s hou se t o p i ck Ja ni ce10

u p , h is f a th e r - in - la w to ld h im s h e w a s a t K itty ’s , s o h e p r o c e e d e d to K itty ’s h o u s e . S ul l i van d eni ed kn ow i ng thatJa ni ce had fi l ed for di vo rc e or thatshe had ob t ai ned a r e s tr a in in g o r d e ra g a in s t h im . W hen h e a rr i ved atK i tty’ s, S ul l i van b ri ef l y s po ke t o K i tty, her daugh t er K i m , and D avi d H ya tt(K i tty’ s boyfr i end), and t hen p roce eded t o the si de do or, w h ere h e m etJan i ce. S u l l i v an ad m i tt ed t al k i n g w i th Jan i ce atK i tty’ s h o u se. T h u s, there w as no need for S ul l i van t o g o t o the backyar d i n o rdert o see Ja ni ce . F u r th e r , K im te s tif

ie d th a t J a n ic e to ld S u lliv a n n o t to g o to th e b a c k y a r d . S u lliv a n c la im e d th a t h e d id n o t r e c a ll th e s u b s ta n c e o f h is c o n v e r s a tio n w ith Ja ni ce . S ul l i van adm i tt ed, ho w ever , thataf t erhe spok e t o Jani ce , he as sum ed S m i th w a s a tK i tty ’ s . S ul l i va n the n w e nti nt o the ba c ky a r d a s J a ni c e w e nti nt o the h o u s e , w a lk e d a r o u n d th e b a c k o f th e h o u s e , b u t d id n o t s e e a n y o n e . A c c o r d in g to S u lliv a n , S m ith th e n ju m p e d o n h im f r o m th e s id e . S u lliv a n te s tif ie d th a t S m ith g r a b b e d a n d h it h im , a n d th e tw o to s s e d , tu m b le d , a n d f o u g h t. T h e d e f e n d a n t S u lliv a n e v e n a d m itte d th a t h e d id n o t s e e a w e ap o n o n S m ith and t hatS ul l i van d re w hi s ow n k ni fe on S m i th. S peci fi ca l l y, S ul l i van t es t i fi ed that S m i th “ com e a t[S ul l i van] w i th b oth h ands” a nd struck hi m al l ov er . S ul l i van t hen t e s t i f i e d : “ W e t o s s e d a n d tu mb l e d a n d f o u g h t . D u r i n g th e f

i g h t , I d r a w e d my kn i fe . ” I n res po nse t o the qu es t i on of w hether he knew or sa w atthatt i m e w hether11

S m i th ha d a kni f

e i n hi s ha nd, S ul l i va n s t a t e d “ N o, s i r . ” W he n que s t i one d a ga i n, he st at ed: “ I never se en a w eapo n. ” S ul l i van t es t i fi ed thatthey broke aw ay m o m e n ta r ily w h ile s till o n th e g r o u n d , a n d h e w a s a b le to ta k e f r o m h is p o c k e t a s m a l l kni f

e , l e s s tha n tw o i nc he s l ong, a nd ope n i t . I n r e s pons e t o the que s t i on w h e th e rh e s a w a w e ap o n in S m ith ’s h a n d a t th a t tim e , S u lliv a n r e p lie d : “N o , s ir . E very thi ng w as happ eni ng t oo fa st . ” S u lliv a n ’s o w n te s tim o n y e s tab lis h e d th a t S u lliv a n h a d a k n if e a n d S m ith d id no thave a w eapo n. S ul l i van al so adm i tt ed thatatsom e poi ntthey broke aw ay f r o m e a c h o th e r . R a th e rth a n try to ru n a w a y , S u lliv a n a d m itte d th a t h e g o t o u t h is kn i fe w hen t hey broke aw ay . S ul l i van cl ai m ed thathe coul d n otrun aw ay atthat t i m e be c a us e he r e c e nt l y ha d he rni a s ur ge ry . M or e ove r , a c c or di ng t o S ul l i va n, S m i th th en cam e b ack ath i m , an d n ei th er o f th e m en b ro k e aw ay th ereafter. T h u s, S ul l i va n’ s ve r s i on, i n e f f e c t , i s tha tthe y br oke a w a y , S ul l i va n gotouthi s kni f e , a nd S m ith , w h o h a d n o k n if e , c a m e b a c k a t S u lliv a n . A cc ordi ng t o S ul l i van, S m i th sust ai ned t he st ab w ou nd s a s they s trugg l ed w ith e a c h o th e ro n th e g r o u n d . S u lliv a n c la im e d th a t o n e s tab w o u n d to S m ith occurre d as S ul l i van at t em pt ed t o g etS m i th o ff of hi m . H ow ever , S ul l i van a d m itte d th a t S m ith n e v e rw a s in p o s s e s s io n o f S u lliv a n ’s k n if

e . S u lliv a n d id s u s ta in a s c r a tc h a c r o s s h is s to m a c h f r o m h is o w n k n if

e d u r in g th e irs tru g g le .The state also called Janice Sullivan, but she asserte d the marital privileg e and did not 3 testify about the events of April 27, 1989. 12 D es pi t e D r. L auri dson ’ s t es t i m on y thatS m i th h ad se ven d ee p, gapi ng st ab w ounds , S ul l i va n t e s t i f

i e d tha the di d noti nt e nd t o s t a b S m i th, butw a s onl y try i ng t o g etS m i th o ff

hi m . W hen t hey s epar at ed agai n, S m i th ran, and S ul l i van g otoff the grou nd . S ul l i van d i d n otpu rs ue S m i th, bu tt ol d h i m he w ou l d g ethi m anot her tim e . A f t e rhe l e f tK i tty ’ s , the de f

e nda ntS ul l i va n w e ntt o hi s m othe r ’ s hous e a nd then l ef tthere and d rove around . S ul l i van adm i tt ed thatatsom e poi nton the dri ve, S u lliv a n th r e w h is k n if

e a w a y . T h e n e x t d a y , S u lliv a n w a s in f o r m e d th a t S m ith had d i ed, and h e m ade a rr angem ent s t o turn h i m se l f i n t o the po l i ce . 3 F . Ju ry In st ru ct i on s an d V er d i ct T he s t a t e tr i a l c ourti ns truc t e d the j ury on m ur de r( the c ha r ge i n the i ndi c tm e nt ) , m a ns l aught e rc a us e d by s uf f i c i e ntpr ovoc a t i on i n the he a tof pa s s i on, reck l ess m an sl au g h t er, an d cri m i n al l y n eg l i g en th o m i ci d e. T h e tri al co u rtal so i nstruct ed the j ury on sel f- defe nse. A ft erbegi nn i ng del i bera t i on s, the j ury a sked the c our tf

ora ddi t i ona l i ns truc t i ons on s udde n he a tof pa s s i on pr ovoc a t i on. T he tr i a l c our tthe n i ns truc t e d the j ury a ga i n on the e l e m e nt s of m ur de ra nd m a ns l a ught e ra nd the e f f e c tof a pr ovoc a t i on de f

e ns e . T he f

ol l ow i ng m orni ng, the j ury r eturned a verdi ctfi nd i ng S ul l i van g ui l ty of m urder. T he tri al courtse nt ence d13

S ul l i van t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent . S ul l i van m ov ed for anew tri al , ar gu i ng , i nt eral i a, thatthe st at e f

ai l ed t o com pl y w i th i t s B ra dy ob l i gat i on s. A ft erhear i ng evi dence, th e tr ia l c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n . G . S t at e D i r e c t A p p e al S u l l i v an ap p eal ed h i s co n v i ct i o n t o th e A l ab am a C o u rto f C ri m i n al A p p eal s, r a is in g is s u e s c o n c e rn in g th e a d m is s io n o f p h o to g r ap h s a n d a v id e o tap e in to evi dence, hi s m ot i on s f

or ac qu i tt al and for a new tri al , the t es t i m on y of a n exp ert w i tne s s , a nd the us e of

the H a bi tua l F e l ony O f f e nde r s A c t . T he A l a ba m a C our tof C ri m i nal A pp ea l s a ff

i rm ed hi s c on vi ct i on w i tho utop i ni on . S ul l i van fi l ed an appl i c a t i on f

orr e he a r i ng, w hi c h the A l a ba m a C our tde ni e d. H . S tate M oti on for P ost- C on vi ct i on R el i ef S u lliv a n f

ile d a p r o s e p e titio n f

o rp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f in A lab a m a C ir c u it C o u r t p u r s u a n t to A lab a m a R u le o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 2 a n d s u b s e q u e n tly am ended t he pet i t i on . In hi s a m ended R ul e 32 p et i t i on S ul l i van argued, i nt eral i a, thathi s tri al coun se l , John T . K i rk (“ K i rk”) , w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o i nt ervi ew orc a l l S ul l i va n’ s daught e rR e ne e a s a w i tne s s dur i ng the tr i a l . A tthe t i m e of the m ur de r , R e ne e w a s f

i ve y e a r s ol d, a nd S ul l i va n c l a i m e d s he w i tne s s e d hi s f i ght w ith S m ith . T h e s tate circ u itco u rt h eld a h ea rin g at w h ich m o st o f S u ll iv an ’s s ubpoe na e d w i tne s s e s , i nc l udi ng K i r k, f a i l e d t o appe a r . S ul l i va n a s ke d tha tthe14

st at e c i rc ui tcourtadm i tR enee ’ s t es t i m on y t o sup po rthi s c l ai m thatK i rk w as i neff ec t i ve, bu tthe st at e c i rc ui tcourtre fuse d t o h ea r hert es t i m on y, st at i ng that

“ [i ] tdo es n’ thave anythi ng t o d o w i th the i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , w hat she m ay have w i tness ed, ” a nd her t es t i m on y w as no ti m po rt antbecause they w er e n o t g o in g to r e try th e c a s e . T he s t a t e c i r c ui tc our tde ni e d S ul l i va n’ s pe t i t i on, a nd he appe a l e d t o the A l abam a C ou rtof C ri m i nal A pp ea l s. S ul l i van argued t hat , al tho ug h h e had advi se d K i rk thatR enee w as a w i tness three m on ths before tri al and asked K i rk s e v e r a l tim e s d u r in g tr ia l to c a ll h e ra s a w itn e s s , K ir k f a ile d to in te r v ie w h e ro rto i nv es t i gat e the i nform at i on she had. S ul l i van m ai nt ai ned t hatthe l ow ercourterre d i n de ny i ng hi s R ul e 32 pe t i t i on w i thouthe a r i ng R e ne e ’ s orK i r k’ s t e s t i m ony . T he st at e prose cut or conceded thatthe ca se shou l d b e r em anded for entry of a f i nal o r d e rw ith s p e c if

ic f a c t f in d in g s . T h e A lab a m a C o u r t o f

C r im in a l A p p e a ls r e m a n d e d th e c a s e f o rth e s ta te c i r c ui tc our tt o s t a t e w i th pa r t i c ul a r i ty i t s r e a s oni ng a nd f i ndi ngs f orde ny i ng S ul l i van’ s R ul e 32 p et i t i on . O n rem and, the st at e c i rc ui tcourti ss ued a bri ef order s t a t i ng tha tS ul l i va n f

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f

f ori ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . T he A l a ba m a C our tof C r im in a l A p p e a ls a f

f ir m e d w ith o u t s u b s ta n tia l d is c u s s io n .15

I . § 2254 P e t i t i on O n M ay 8, 19 96 , S ul l i van fi l ed i n feder al di stri ctcourta pet i t i on for habeas re l i ef pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 4. In hi s § 22 54 pet i t i on , S ul l i van argued, i nt er al i a, thatK i rk prov i ded i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l i n fai l i ng t o cal l R enee as a w itn es s o r to in terv iew h erev en th o u g h sh e w as th e o n ly o n e to w itn es s S m ith ’s d e a th . S ul l i van at t ac hed t o h i s § 22 54 re pl y bri ef a tra nscr i ptof a deposi t i on gi ven by R enee i n 1 99 5, w hen she w as el even ye ar s ol d. T hu s, R enee ’ s deposi t i on w as t a ke n ove rf

i ve y e a r s a f

t e rthe m ur de r . I n the de pos i t i on, R e ne e s t a t e d tha ton the d ay S m i th d i ed , S m i th an d Jan i ce w ere t al k i n g i n th e b ack yard o f K i tty’ s h o u se w hi l e R enee cl i m bed a tre e. W hen t he defendantS ul l i van arri ved atK i tty’ s hou se , Ja ni ce t ol d S m i th t o l ea ve, bu the re fuse d and hi d b y the si de of the ho use. R enee and h erm other J ani ce w enti nsi de. A s t o the outbr e a k be tw e e n S ul l i va n a nd S m i th, R e ne e t e s t i f i e d i n the depo si t i on : “ M i ke [S m i th] j um ped o n m y daddy [S ul l i van] , and m y daddy j um ped on hi m . M i ke st abbed m y daddy, and t hen m y daddy st abbed h i m . ” R enee then s t a t e d tha ts he w e nti nt o K i tty ’ s hous e a s S ul l i va n w e ntt o the ba c ky a r d, a nd there af t erR enee w at ched her fa ther onl y f rom a w i nd ow . A cc ordi ng t o R enee , her da ddy ( S ul l i va n) w a l ke d t o the s i de of the hous e w he r e S m i th w a s hi di ng, a nd16

S m i th j um pe d on S ul l i va n. R e ne e t e s t i f i e d tha tw he n S m i th j um pe d on he rda ddy (S ul l i van), the tw o m en fe l l t o the grou nd , rol l ed ar ou nd , and st abbed each other, butS m i th s t a bbe d S ul l i va n f i r s t . A c c or di ng t o R e ne e , S m i th gotthe kni f e “ outof hi s bac k p ocket ” a nd had h i s kni fe ou tfi rs t , bu tthen h erdadd y ( S ul l i van) pu l l ed o u t h is k n if

e a f te rS m ith ju m p e d o n a n d s tab b e d h im . A c c o r d in g to R e n e e , S m ith s tab b e d h e rd a d d y ( S u lliv a n ) th r e e o rf o u rtim e s in th e s to m a c h . J. F i rs t D i st ri ct C ou rt O rd er O n M a y 13, 1999, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge e nt e r e d a r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on (the “ F i rs tR & R ”) , w hi ch re com m ended t hatS ul l i van’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on be deni ed w ith o u t a h e a r in g . W ith r e g a r d to S u lliv a n ’s c la im th a t K ir k w a s in e f f e c tiv e in fa i l i ng t o cal l or i nt ervi ew R enee , the m agi stra t e j ud ge det erm i ned t hatS ul l i van fa i l ed t o sho w ei ther thatK i rk’ s per form ance w as defi ci entor thathe suff er ed p r e ju d ic e . S p e c if

ic a lly , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e f o u n d th a t R e n e e ’s d e p o s itio n , “w h ile ap p e a r in g r e h e a r s e d r e g a r d in g s o m e q u e s tio n s , is in c o n s is te n t a n d o v e r a ll c onf us i ng. ” T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge a l s o s t a t e d: A ddi t i ona l l y , t h e st a t e m e nt , t a ke n f i ve y e a r s a f

t e rthe e ve nt s oc c urr e d, m ay bearl i tt l e r es em bl ance t o any st at em entthe chi l d m ay have gi ven atthe t i m e of the m u rd er . T he fa i l ure of [ K i rk] t o cal l [R enee ] do es n o t a p p ear u n reaso n ab l e. . . . [E ] v en i f [K i rk ’ s] act i o n s i n fai l i n g to ca l l [R enee ] coul d b e deem ed defi ci ent , [S ul l i van] fa i l s t o sho w that there i s “ a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty th at, b utfor [ K i rk’ s] un profes si on al e rr o r s , th e r e s u lts o f

th e p r o c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t.”17

S ul l i van o bj ec t ed t o the F i rs tR & R , ar gu i ng thathe w as ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hea ri ng because he had show n thatK i rk’ s f ai l ure t o i nt ervi ew R enee a nd c a l l he ra s a w i tne s s pr e j udi c e d S ul l i va n’ s c a s e a nd the f a c t s w e r e not a de qua t e l y de ve l ope d i n the s t a t e c our tpos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ngs . H ow e ve r , the di stri ctcourtadop t ed the F i rs tR & R , denyi ng S ul l i van’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on . S ul l i van appl i ed for ace rt i fi ca t e of probabl e c ause (“ C P C ”) , w hi ch the di stri ctcourt g r a n te d . K . F i rs t A p p eal to T h i s C ou rt S ul l i va n the n appe a l e d the de ni a l of hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on t o thi s C our ton s e v e r a l g r o u n d s . T h i s C o u r ta f f i r m e d th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l , e x c e p tth a twe v a c a te d a n d r e m a n d e d a s to S u lliv a n ’s c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l in K i r k’ s noti nt e r vi e w i ng orc a l l i ng R e ne e a s a w i tne s s . S pe c i f i c a l l y , w e c onc l ude d: “C o n tr a ry to th e s u g g e s tio n b y th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e , th e te s tim o n y is c le a rw ith r e s pe c tt o the c ruc i a l m a tt e rof w ho s t a r t e d orpr ovoke d the a l t e r c a t i on be tw e e n the v ic tim a n d S u lliv a n .” B e c a u s e th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s d is m is s a l o f th is c la im “res ted p rim ar il y, if n o t en ti re ly, u p o n h is m isin terp re tati o n o f th e d au g h ter’s t es t i m on y, ” w e vac at ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entand rem anded for further pr oc e e di ngs onl y a s t o tha tc l a i m . T hi s C our ts t a t e d tha ti tw a s e xpr e s s i ng no o p in io n a b o u t th e m e r its o f S u lliv a n ’s c la im . T h is C o u r t a ls o n o te d th a t K ir k d id18

nott e s t i f y a tthe s t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a nd tha ton r e m a nd, the di stri ctcourtshou l d “ cond ucta tho roug h anal ys i s a s t o w hether or notan evi dent i ary hea ri ng i n federa l courti s app ropri at e. ” L . E vi d en ti ary H eari n g i n D i st ri ct C ou rt O n r e m a nd, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge appoi nt e d c ouns e l t o r e pr e s e ntS ul l i va n a nd hel d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng i n 2 00 1 o n S ul l i van’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on , atw hi ch R enee t e s t i f i e d. R e ne e t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he w a s the n 17 y e a r s ol d a nd w a s 5 y e a r s ol d a tthe tim e S m ith d ie d . R e n e e te s tif ie d th a t s h e w a s a t K itty ’s h o m e o n th e d a y in qu es t i on , and she pl ay ed i n a tre e i n the backyar d w hi l e J ani ce and S m i th t al ked b e s id e th a t tr e e . R e n e e s a w S m ith w e a r in g a k n if e o n a h o ld e rin h is b e lt th a t d a y . R e ne e t e s t i f

i e d tha tS ul l i va n c a m e outt o the ba c ky a r d a f t e ra rr i vi ng a tK i tty ’ s , a nd J a ni c e w e nti nt o the hous e . J a ni c e thoughtR e ne e ha d gone i nt o the hous e , but in s te a d , R e n e e f

o llo w e d S u lliv a n b a c k o u t in to th e b a c k y a r d a n d s a w S u lliv a n w a lk to w a r d th e s id e o f

th e h o u s e , w h e r e S m ith w a s s ta n d in g . R e n e e te s tif

ie d th a t S m ith ju m p e d o n S u lliv a n , c o m in g a t S u lliv a n w ith h is

“ k n i fe h el d h i g h , ” as fo l l o w s: Q . W h a t d id y o u s e e n e x t? A . M i k e [ Smi th ] j u mp e d o n h i m. Q. Ok a y , t e l l u s wh a ty o u s a w. A . M i ke c a m e outw i th hi s kni f e he l d hi gh. Q . A nd y ou s a y he c a me ou t , w a s the r e s ome pl a c e tha the w as i nsi de? Y ou sa y he c am e out . W as he i n --19

A . H e j um ped from the si de of the ho use. A c c o r d in g to R e n e e , th e tw o th e n f e ll to th e g r o u n d , r o lle d a r o u n d , a n d f o u g h t. R e n e e c o u ld n o t te ll e x a c tly w h a t w a s o c c u rr in g b e tw e e n S u lliv a n a n d S m ith because they w er e “ t oo t i gh t l y w rapp ed. ” A cc ordi ng t o R enee , S m i th h ad a kni fe w h ile th e tw o f

o u g h t, b u t w a s h ittin g S u lliv a n w ith th e h a n d h o ld in g th e k n if e . R enee di d n otse e S m i th stri ke or cutS ul l i van w i th h i s kni fe . R enee sa w S ul l i van w ith h is o w n k n if

e a f te ra m in u te o rtw o , a lth o u g h s h e d id n o t s e e S u lliv a n p u ll it out . R e ne e w a t c he d f

ora f e w m i nut e s , butJ a ni c e r e tur ne d t o the ba c ky a r d a nd t ook he ri nt o the hous e . R e ne e the n w e ntt o one of the be dr oom s a nd w a t c he d the fi gh tfr om a w i nd ow , bu tshe w at ched throu gh the w i nd ow on l y f or a very s ho rt t i m e be c a us e J a ni c e r e tr i e ve d he ra nd l oc ke d the m both i n a ba thr oom . T he ne xt tim e R e n e e s a w S u lliv a n , h e w a s g e ttin g in to h is tru c k , a n d h is s h ir t w a s c o v e r e d in b lo o d a n d h a d a h o le in it. K i rk t es t i fi ed thathi s m em ory w as very sket chy, bu the sa i d h e i nv es t i gat ed the s c e ne of

the i nc i de nt , s poke w i th the pol i c e of f i c e r s a s s i gne d t o the c a s e , a nd i nt ervi ew ed “

j ustabou teverybod y thatw as sugg es t ed t o m e t o b e aw i tness t o that i nci dentor po ss es se d i nform at i on abou tthe decea se d M i chae l S m i th, and fol ks that kne w M r . S ul l i va n a nd J a ni c e . ” K i r k c oul d notr e m e m be rm a ny f a c t s a bouttheIn additi on to Re ne e , Sulliva

n h a s tw o o ther da

ughters . 4 20 tri al , such as w hether S ul l i van’ s daugh t er s t es t i fi ed; no r c ou l d h e r em em ber 4 ap p ea rin g o r a rg u in g at a m o ti o n fo r n ew trial, w h eth erh e in terv iew ed K itty’s th e n - b o y f

r ie n d D a v id H y a tt, o rw h a t h a d h ap p e n e d to th e m a jo r ity o f h is c a s e f

ile . I n r e s p o n s e to q u e s tio n in g a b o u t w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t S u lliv a n e v e rto ld K i r k tha tS m i th w a s the a tt a c ke r , K i r k r e pl i e d tha the unde r s t ood tha tS ul l i va n w e nt t o K i tty’ s hom e “ re as on abl y a ss ured” thathe w ou l d fi nd S m i th there w i th Jani ce a nd tha tthe de f

e nda ntS ul l i va n di d nott e l l hi m tha tS m i th a tt a c ke d. I n de s c r i bi ng S ul l i van’ s a cc ou ntof the fa ct s t o K i rk, K i rk st at ed S ul l i van “ w enti n the backyar d f ora ve ry s pe c i f

i c purpos e , ” e xpe c t i ng t o f i nd S m i th the r e , a nd “ [ h] e w a s not a tt a c ke d by M r . S m i th. ” K i r k t e s t i f i e d tha tS ul l i va n’ s c hi e f de f e ns e w a s he a tof pa s s i on, a nd K i r k a tt e m pt e d t o ge tthe ve r di c tr e duc e d t o m a ns l a ught e r . N o one e ve rc a m e f

orw a r d t o s a y tha tS m i th a tt a c ke d S ul l i va n. K i r k a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the f o u n d n o th in g to in d ic a te th a t S m ith h a d a k n if e o n th a t d a y . K ir k te s tif

ie d th a t h e h a d in te r v ie w e d J a n ic e a n d K itty S u lliv a n a n d th a t, to h is k n o w led g e, th er e w er e n o ey ew itn es se s o th erth an S u ll iv an . Jan ice, R en ee ’s m o th e r , s u p p lie d a lis t o f n a m e s o f

in d iv id u a ls w h o h a d in f o r m a tio n f

o rth e tr ia l, bu tR enee w as no ton Ja ni ce ’ s l i st . Ja ni ce di d n otdesc ri be anyone as a n ey ew i tness . K i rk further t es t i fi ed thatthe evi dence di d n oti nd i ca t e thatR enee sa w21

an yth i n g , an d m o reo v er, S u l l i v an sp eci fi cal l y t o l d K i rk th atR en ee d i d n o tw i tn ess the f i ght . K i r k w a s s urpr i s e d w he n K i tty t e s t i f i e d tha tR e ne e w a s s t a ndi ng a tthe ba c k doorw he n S ul l i va n w a l ke d out s i de a nd a ttha tpoi nt , he pr oba bl y a s ke d the defe nd antS ul l i van attri al w hether R enee w as atthe back do or, and S ul l i van prob abl y a nsw er ed i n the negat i ve, bu tK i rk coul d n otre m em ber. K i rk ack n o w l ed g ed th ath e h ad i n t erv i ew ed ch i l d ren i n p rep arat i o n fo r o th er cases, general l y w hi l e thei r par ent s w er e pre se nt , bu tst at ed thathe w ou l d n othave t aken i tup on hi m se l f t o i nt ervi ew R enee because he “ w ou l d n otdo thatt o a chi l d. ” S ul l i va n t e s t i f

i e d tha the ne ve rba rr e d K i r k f r om s pe a ki ng w i th hi s c hi l dr e n, and h e a sked K i rk t o speak w i th R enee i n the days prec edi ng the tri al . S ul l i van st at ed thathe as ked K i rk approx i m at el y three t o si x t i m es du ri ng tri al t o p utR enee on the st and, bu tK i rk pu thi m off. S ul l i van d i d n otthi nk thatJa ni ce prevent ed K i r k f r om i nt e r vi e w i ng R e ne e . S ul l i va n s t a t e d tha tK i r k pr oba bl y di d not rem em b er b ei n g t o l d th ath e sh o u l d i n t erv i ew R en ee o r h av e h er t est i fy b ecau se S ul l i van sai d h e di d n otpres s the m att erw i th K i rk “ [o] utof re spec t . ” A s t o A pr i l 27, 1989, S ul l i va n t e s t i f i e d i n 2001 tha tS m i th ha d a kni f e a tthe fi gh t . H ow ever , S ul l i van adm i tt ed thathe di d n ott el l K i rk abou tS m i th’ s kni fe be c a us e he di d notr e m e m be rthe de t a i l s of the f i ghtf orappr oxi m a t e l y a y e a ra nd a hal f a ft erhi s c on vi ct i on . S ul l i van al so di d n ott el l K i rk thathi s m em ory w as22

i nc om pl e t e be c a us e he di d notr e a l i z e i ta tthe t i m e . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, S ul l i va n c l a r i f

i e d tha tS m i th ha d j um pe d on hi m f r om the s i de t ow a r ds hi s ba c k, a n d S u l l i v a n g l i m p s e d S m i th ’ s k n i f e . S u l l i v a n s t a t e d th a td u r i n g th e f i g h tth e two n e v e rs to o d u p . S u lliv a n b e lie v e d S m ith d r o p p e d h is k n if e b e c a u s e S u lliv a n d id no tse e i tagai n, bu the w as no tsure w hathad h appened t o S m i th’ s kni fe . S ul l i van t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d a s l i ghtc uton hi s s t om a c h, a nd he r e m e m be r e d w oundi ng S m ith in tw o p la c e s . M. S e c o n d R &R a n d S u p p l e m e n t a l R &R A f t e rf ur the rbr i e f

i ng by both pa r t i e s , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge i s s ue d a s e c ond re p o rt an d re co m m en d atio n (“S ec o n d R & R ”) , rec o m m en d in g th at S u ll iv an ’s § 2 25 4 p et i t i on be deni ed. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge foun d thattw o st at em ent s w er e m ade a ttri al by the prosecut or and K i rk thatno ey ew i tness es exi st ed, bu tS ul l i van d id n o t s p e a k u p a t th o s e tim e s . N e x t, th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d e te r m in e d th a t a re as on abl e a tt orney c ou l d h ave deci ded t hathe shou l d n otca l l R enee t o t es t i fy un der a ny ci rc um st ance s. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge no t ed thatR enee had t es t i fi ed S m i th ha d a kni f

e buttha tthe m e di c a l a nd t e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng S ul l i va n’ s ow n a c c ountof the e ve nta ttr i a l , c ontr a di c t e d R e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony a nd vi t i at ed the cr edi bi l i ty of R enee ’ s t es t i m on y. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge thu s f ou nd that ba s e d on the t ot a l i ty of

the e vi de nc e , K i r k’ s a c t i ons w e r e r e a s ona bl e a nd not23

d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e . T h e m ag istrate ju d g e a lso n o ted th at th er e w as n o ev id en ce th at K irk ’s ac t i on s pre

j ud i ce d S ul l i van b ec ause there w as no re as on abl e possi bi l i ty, af t er c om pa r i ng R e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony t o the r e m a i nde rof the e vi de nc e , of

a di f f e r e nt out c om e a tthe tr i a l . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge s t a t e d tha tthe r e w a s no di s put e i n the e vi de nc e a boutw he the rS m i th j um pe d S ul l i va n a s he w e nti nt o the ba c k y a r d, a nd thatfa ctdi d n otam el i orat e the consequences of Su l l i van’ s dra w i ng hi s kni fe w hen he a nd S m i th br oke apa r tdur i ng the f i ght . A nd a s not e d e a r l i e r , R e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tS m i th w a s a r m e d w i th a kni f e w a s c ontr a ry t o a l l the phy s i c a l e vi de nc e a nd e v e n S m ith ’s te s tim o n y a t tr ia l. T h a t in c o n s is te n c y , a lo n g w ith m u ltip le in c o n s is te n c ie s b e tw e e n h e rte s tim o n y a t a g e s 1 1 a n d 1 7 , c o n v in c e d th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e th a t th e r e w a s n o p r o b a b ility th e ju ry w o u ld h a v e c r e d ite d h e rte s tim o n y . A f t e rS ul l i va n f

i l e d obj e c t i ons t o the S e c ond R & R , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge i s s ue d a s uppl e m e nt a l r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on ( “ S uppl e m e nt a l R & R ” ) , f i ndi ng, i nt eral i a, thata port i on of S ul l i van’ s t es t i m on y i nd i ca t ed thathe had t ol d K i rk that R e ne e w a s a n e y e w i tne s s , butS ul l i va n’ s a dm i s s i on tha the di d notpr e s s the poi nt w i th K i rk “ bo rder [e d] on the i ncre di bl e. ” T he m agi stra t e j ud ge further det erm i ned tha tR e ne e ’ s “ t e s t i m ony w a s s o c ontr a ry t o the e vi de nc e . . . tha tthe r e [ w a s ] no r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility ” o f a d if f e r e n t o u tc o m e .24

N . D i st ri ct C ou rt O rd er A f t e rS ul l i va n obj e c t e d t o the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s S uppl e m e nt a l R & R , the di stri ctcourtas ked t he part i es t o b ri ef addi t i on al i ss ues. S ub se qu ent l y, the di stri ct c our tde ni e d S ul l i va n’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on, a dopt i ng the S e c ond R & R a nd S up pl em ent al R & R t o the ext entthey f ou nd thatS ul l i van d i d n otshow the re qu i re d pr e j udi c e . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe phy s i c a l a nd m e di c a l e vi de nc e di d not supp ortR enee ’ s ver si on of event s. T he di stri ctcourtstre ss ed that“ S ul l i van h im s e lf [ te s tif ie d ] th a t h e n e v e rs a w a k n if e , a n d c e r ta in ly n e v e rte s tif ie d th a t S m ith att ac ked h i m w i th h i s ‘ kn i fe hel d h i gh . ’ ” T he di stri ctcourtthu s det erm i ned, base d on the i ncon si st ence s betw ee n R enee ’ s t es t i m on y thatS m i th fi rs tatt ac ked S ul l i van w i th a kni f

e a nd the othe re vi de nc e i n the c a s e tha ts how e d no kni f e w a s f ound on S m i th, tha tS ul l i va n f

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h pr e

j udi c e unde rS tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 2 0 5 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatS ul l i van d i d t el l K i rk thatR enee w as an ey ew i tness t o the fi gh tbecause the m agi stra t e j ud ge di d n otexpres sl y r ej ec t S u lliv a n ’s te s tim o n y o n th is p o in t. N e v e r th e le s s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c h o s e n o t to ru le o n w h e th e rK ir k ’s p e r f

o r m a n c e w a s r e a s o n a b le o rd e f ic ie n t. S u lliv a n f

ile d a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l a n d ap p lie d f

o ra c e r tif

ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility ( “ C O A ” ) , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d. T hi s C our tgr a nt e d a C O A on the i s s ueIn this case, the state does not claim that we should apply the def erential standard of 5 review set for

th in the Antiterrorism and Ef fec tive Death Penalty

Act of 1996 ( “AED PA”) to any state cour t rulings. Rather, both parties on a ppeal raise only

issues as to the district court’s finding s and conc lusions after its evidentiar y hearing, a

nd both parties agreeon the standard of review of the district c ourt’s fact finding s and conc lusions of law. Thus, g iven how the pa rties have chosen to litigatethe ca se, wedo not addre ss AEDPA. 25 of “ [ w ] he the rtr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o i nt e r vi e w R e ne e S ul l i va n, or t o cal l her a s aw i tness attri al ? ” I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW In re vi ew i ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a § 22 54 habeas pet i t i on , w e r evi ew q u est i o n s o f l aw an d m i x ed q u est i o n s o f factan d l aw d e n o v o . L eC ro y v . S ec’ y, F la . D e p ’t. o f

C o rr ., 4 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1458 ( 2006) . W e r e vi e w f i ndi ngs of

f a c tonl y f

orc l e a re rr or . I d. 5 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he on l y i ss ue on appeal i s w hether S ul l i van’ s tri al coun se l w as co n st i tu t i o n al l y d efi ci en ti n fai l i n g t o i n t erv i ew R en ee S u l l i v an o r cal l h er as a w i tness . W e f

i rs tou t l i ne the l egal pri nci pl es go verni ng i neff ec t i ve as si st ance c la im s a n d th e n ap p ly th o s e p r in c ip le s to S u lliv a n ’s c la im . A . G o v ern i n g l eg a l p ri n ci p l es

“ I ti s w e l l e s t a bl i s he d tha tthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n S tr i c kl a nd i s the

‘ cont rol l i ng l egal autho ri ty’ t o b e app l i ed t o i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l c l a i m s . ” R obi ns on v. M oor e , 300 F . 3d 1320, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng26

W illia m s v . T a y lo r , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 6 1 2 0 S . C t. 1 4 9 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . T o p r e v a il, a pet i t i on er“ m ustshow bo th i ncom pet ence and p re j ud i ce . ” C hand l erv. U ni t ed S ta te s , 2 1 8 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T he st andard go verni ng coun se l ’ s per form ance i s “ re as on abl enes s und er p r e v a ilin g p r o f

e s s io n a l n o r m s .” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 5 .

“ T he purpos e of

i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s r e vi e w i s nott o gr a de c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e , ” but t o de t e r m i ne w he the rtha tpe r f or m a nc e f

e l l w i thi n the br oa d r a nge “ of w ha tm i ght be a r e a s ona bl e appr oa c h a ttr i a l . ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1313. “ T o s t a t e the obvi ous : the tr i a l l a w y e r s , i n e ve ry c a s e , c oul d ha ve done s om e thi ng m or e or s o m e th in g d if

f e r e n t. S o , o m is s io n s a r e in e v itab le . B u t, th e is s u e is n o t w h a t is p o s s ib le o r‘w h a t is p ru d e n t o rap p r o p r ia te , b u t o n ly w h a t is c o n s titu tio n a lly c om pe l l e d. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng B ur ge rv. K e m p, 483 U . S . 776, 107 S . C t . 3114, 3126 (198 7)). T he bu rden of persuas i on i s on the pet i t i on ert o p rove by a prepond er ance of the e vi de nc e tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s unr e a s ona bl e . I d. a t1313- 14. “[ A ] c o u r t m u s t in d u lg e a s tr o n g p r e s u m p tio n th a t c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c t f a lls w i thi n the w i de r a nge of r e a s ona bl e pr of

e s s i ona l a s s i s t a nc e ; tha ti s , the de f e nda nt m ustov er com e the pres um pt i on that , un der the ci rc um st ance s, the chal l enged a c t i on m i ghtbe c ons i de r e d s ound tr i a l s tr a t e gy . ” S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t689, 104 S . C t. at 2 0 6 5 (q u o tati o n m ar k s a n d citati o n o m itted ). “[B ]eca u se co u n se l’ sIn B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 6 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 27 cond ucti s pre sum ed re as on abl e, for apet i t i on ert o sho w thatthe cond uctw as unr e a s ona bl e , a pe t i t i one rm us te s t a bl i s h tha tno c om pe t e ntc ouns e l w oul d ha ve ta k e n th e a c tio n th a t h is c o u n s e l d id ta k e .” C h a n d le r , 2 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 5 . A s f o rth e s e c o n d p r o n g , “[ a ] p e titio n e r ’s b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th a t h is l aw ye r’ s def

i ci entperf

orm ance prej ud i ce d h i s c as e i s hi gh . ” R ob i nson , 30 0 F . 3d at 1343- 44 ( quot a t i on m a r ks , c i t a t i on, a nd punc tua t i on om i tt e d) . “ U nde rthe pr e j udi c e pr ong of

S tr i c kl a nd, i ti s note nough f orthe de f

e nda ntt o s how tha tthe e rr or s ha d s om e c onc e i va bl e e f f e c ton the out c om e of

the pr oc e e di ng. ” G r a y s on v. T hom ps on, 257 F . 3d 1194, 1225 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . I n s te a d , th e p e titio n e r“m u s t s h o w th a t th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t, b u t f

o rc o u n s e l’s u n p r o f

e s s io n a l e rr o r s , th e r e s u lt o f th e p r o c e e d in g w o u ld ha ve be e n di f

f e r e nt . ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1312- 13 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T hi s pr e

j udi c e bur de n i s he a vy w he r e the pe t i t i one ra l l e ge s i ne f f e c t i ve assi st an ce i n fai l i n g t o cal l a w i tn ess b ecau se “ o ft en al l eg at i o n s o f w h ata w i tn ess w oul d ha ve t e s t i f

i e d t o a r e l a r ge l y s pe c ul a t i ve . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G ue rr a , 628 F . 2d 41 0, 41 3 (5t h C i r. 19 80 ). 6 B . F ai l u re to In te rvi ew or C al l R en eeThereis a fac tual issue whether Reneeactually

saw the star

t of the fight. Under one 7 vers ion of thee vide nc e , s hewa s o ut in th ebac k ya rd wh e n th efi ght s tart e d, but th e rewa s also evidenc e that she w as alre ady at the bac k door of Kitty ’s house or perhaps already inside the house. F or purpose s of this appeal, we assume Renee sa w the start of

the fight. The inconsistencies over where Rene e wa s would further weaken her

testimony , however. 28 S ul l i va n’ s a r gum e nti s tha tK i r k kne w tha tR e ne e w a s pr e s e nta tthe s c e ne of S m i th’ s dea th and , ac cordi ng l y, thathe w as i neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o i nt ervi ew her t o de t e r m i ne w ha ts he s a w . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d S ul l i va n’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on ba s e d on S ul l i va n’ s f

a i l ur e t o e s t a bl i s h pr e

j udi c e a nd di d nota ddr e s s the perf orm ance pron g o f S tri ckl and. B ec ause w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthat S u l l i v an fai l ed t o est ab l i sh p rej u d i ce, w e affi rm o n th atg ro u n d an d d o n o tad d ress th e p e r f o r m a n c e p r o n g . S e e S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 9 ( “I f it i s e a s i e rt o di s pos e of

a n i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s c l a i m on the gr ound of l a c k of s uf f i c i e nt p r e ju d ic e , w h ic h w e e x p e c t w ill o f te n b e s o , th a t c o u r s e s h o u ld b e f o llo w e d .” ) . A s ex p l ai n ed ab o v e, t o m eetS tri ck l an d ’ s p rej u d i ce p ro n g , S u l l i v an m u st e s t a bl i s h “ a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . ” C ha ndl e r , 218 F . 3d a t1312- 13 (quo t at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). S ul l i van argues on app ea l thatR enee w a s th e s o le e y e w itn e s s to th e f ig h t a n d h e rte s tim o n y w o u ld h a v e s u p p o r te d h is a r gum e nttha tS m i th w a s the i ni t i a l a ggr e s s ora nd a tt a c ke d S ul l i va n f i r s tw i th a kn i fe . T hu s, S ul l i van argues, there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty that , had h i s tri al

729

c o u n s e l in te r v ie w e d R e n e e a n d c a lle d h e ra s a w itn e s s a t tr ia l, th e ju ry f ir s t w o u ld h av e b el i ev ed R en ee an d th erefo re th en w o u l d h av e b el i ev ed h i s sel f-d efen se ar gu m ent , or atl ea stconv i ct ed hi m of m ansl augh t eri n the heatof pass i on ra ther than m urder. S ul l i van’ s a rgum entfa i l s bec ause R enee ’ s t es t i m on y w ho l l y l ac ked c r e di bi l i ty f

ors e ve r a l r e a s ons . F i r s t , R e ne e c ha nge d he rs t ory a nd ga ve i ncon si st entvers i on s of w hathapp ened atthe sc ene. F or exam pl e, R enee t es t i fi ed i n h er19 95 depo si t i on – g i ven si x yea rs af t erthe m urder, w hen she w as el even ye ar s ol d – thatS m i th p ul l ed a kni fe fr om hi s bac k p ocketand t hen at t ac ked S ul l i van, st abbi ng hi m three or four t i m es . H ow ever , atthe 20 01 evi dent i ary hear i ng , atage s event ee n, R enee changed h erst ory, t es t i fy i ng thatshe neversa w S m i th s tr i ke orc utS ul l i va n w i th S m i th’ s kni f e . R e ne e a l s o m a i nt a i ne d a tthe 2001 hear i ng thatS m i th i ni t i at ed the encoun t erby com i ng atS ul l i van w i th h i s “ kn i fe he l d hi gh, ” a s oppos e d t o pul l i ng hi s kni f e f r om hi s ba c k poc ke t . I n a ddi t i on, R enee changed h erst ory a s t o w here she w as w hen t he fi gh tfi rs tst art ed. In her 19 95 depo si t i on , she t es t i fi ed thatas S ul l i van w entou t si de, she a nd her m other J a n ic e w e n t in s id e , a n d s h e w a tc h e d S m ith a tta c k S u lliv a n f r o m a w in d o w . H ow ever , i n 2 00 1, R enee t es t i fi ed thaton l y herm other w enti nsi de and t hat a lth o u g h h e rm o th e rth o u g h t s h e f o llo w e d h e r , R e n e e s ta y e d o u ts id e a n d s a w S m ith30

ju m p o u t w ith h is k n if

e h e ld h ig h a n d la n d o n h e rf a th e r . S e c o n d , e v e n s e tt i n g a s i d e th e o b v i o u s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n R e n e e ’ s o wn t e s t i m ony , both of

R e ne e ’ s a c c ount s a r e e nt i r e l y i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the phy s i c a l a nd t e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l . F ore xa m pl e , phot ogr aphs of the de f e nda nt S ul l i van t aken the day a ft erthe m urder, w hen h e turned h i m se l f i n t o p ol i ce , es t abl i sh thatS ul l i van suffe re d n o st ab w ou nd s, bu ton l y asi ng l e, m i no r s cr at ch acro ss h i s st o m ach . T h e p h o t o g rap h s o f S u l l i v an are i n m ark ed co n trastw i th th o se of S m i th’ s bod y, w hi ch re veal se ven d ee p, gapi ng w ou nd s over S m i th’ s bod y that r e s ul t e d i n hi s de a th, nott o m e nt i on num e r ous l e s s s e ve r e c ut s , a br a s i ons , a nd b ru is e s . T h e p h o to g r ap h s n e g a te R e n e e ’s 1 9 9 5 d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y th a t S m ith ha d a kni f

e a nd s t a bbe d S ul l i va n m ul t i pl e t i m e s . W hi l e thi s m a y he l p e xpl a i n w hy R e n e e c h a n g e d h e rs to ry a t th e 2 0 0 1 h e a r in g a n d te s tif ie d th a t s h e n e v e rs a w S m ith stri k e o r cu tS u l l i v an , R en ee’ s ch an g e i n h er st o ry, al o n g w i th th e p h o t o g rap h s, to g e th e rs ig n if

ic a n tly u n d e r m in e h e rc r e d ib ility . M oreover, al tho ug h R enee cl ai m ed S m i th h ad hi s ow n k ni fe , no kn i fe w as di s c ove r e d on S m i th’ s body ora tthe s c e ne , a nd none of the othe rw i tne s s e s w ho w e r e a tK i tty S ul l i va n’ s hous e the da y of the m ur de rs a w S m i th w i th a kni f e a ny t i m e tha tda y . I nde e d, e ve n S ul l i va n hi m s e l f a dm i tt e d thr e e t i m e s a ttr i a l tha the d id n o t see S m ith w ith a w ea p o n , th at S m ith n ev erw as in co n tro l o f S u ll iv an ’sWe understand Sullivan’s argument that he could have ac ted in self-de fenseif he 8 rea sonably

fea red that Smi th had a knifeand would har m him with i t, even if Smith did not actually have a knife. How ever , Reneetestified that Smith had a knife a nd drewhis knife first. That testimony

was c rucial to her story, and the f act that all the other evidence c ontradicts that testimony is highly relevant to her credibility and thus the valueof her testimony . 31 k n ife, an d th at th e s cr atch ac ro ss S u ll iv an ’s sto m ac h w as in flicted b y S u ll iv an ’s ow n k ni fe as the tw o strugg l ed. S ul l i van al so never c l ai m ed thatS m i th ever s t a bbe d hi m . I n l i ghtof S ul l i va n’ s t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l tha the di d nots e e a kni f e on 8 S m i th a nd the c l e a re vi de nc e tha tS m i th di d notus e hi s kni f e a ga i ns tS ul l i va n, nei ther vers i on of R enee ’ s t es t i m on y – thatS m i th att ac ked S ul l i van w i th h i s “ kn i fe h e ld h ig h ” o rth a t S m ith s tab b e d S u lliv a n m u ltip le tim e s – is c r e d ib le . I n a ddi t i on, D r . L a ur i ds on, the s t a t e m e di c a l e xa m i ne r , t e s t i f i e d tha ti n l i ght of the ext entand n ature of S m i th’ s s even deep, gapi ng st ab w ou nd s, on e of w hi ch w as on S m i th’ s bac k, i tw as “ hi gh l y unl i kel y” thatthe w ou nd s w er e i nfl i ct ed as tw o i ndi vi dua l s r ol l e d on the gr ound orby a pe r s on de f e ndi ng hi m s e l f

a ga i ns tthe v i ct i m , as R en ee t est i fi ed . D r. L au ri d so n ’ s t est i m o n y, al o n g w i th th e p h o t o g rap h s, e s t a bl i s he s a one - s i de d a tt a c k by S ul l i va n a ga i ns tS m i th a nd notthe ty pe of strugg l e des cr i bed b y R enee . In short , no ne of the tri al evi dence s up po rt ed R e n e e ’s v e r s io n o f

th e f a c ts , a n d o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e c o n tr a d ic te d it. F i na l l y , w e c a n onl y s pe c ul a t e a s t o w hi c h ve r s i on of R e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony w ou l d h ave been offe re d h ad she been ca l l ed t o t es t i fy i n S ul l i van’ s tri al . S ee32

G uerr a, 62 8 F . 2d at41 3. A l l w e have i s her19 95 depo si t i on and 2 00 1 evi dent i ary h e a r in g te s tim o n y , a n d th a t te s tim o n y is in c o n s is te n t. P e rh ap s h e rte s tim o n y in 1990 w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e ntf r om tha ti n 1995 a nd 2001. B ute ve n a s s um i ng th atR en ee w o u l d h av e t est i fi ed attri al i n fu l l su p p o rto f h er fath er’ s sel f-d efen se s t o ry , a s s e tf

o r th i n e i th e rh e rd e p o s i t i o n o rh e re v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y , we c onc l ude tha tR e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony l a c ke d c r e di bi l i ty f ors e ve r a l r e a s ons . A s s uc h, S u ll iv an h as n o t car ried h is b u rd en to sh o w a r ea so n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at R en ee ’s t es t i m on y w ou l d h ave c hang ed the ou t com e of hi s tri al . S ee T ho m pson v. N agl e, 118 F . 3d 1442, 1453 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( a f f i r m i ng de ni a l of

ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on b e c a u s e p o te n tia l w itn e s s e s , w h o w e r e n o t c a lle d a n d w h o s e te s tim o n y a lle g e d ly w oul d ha ve t e s t i f

i e d i n pe t i t i one r ’ s f

a vora ttr i a l , w e r e notbe l i e va bl e ) ; W i l e y v. W a in w r ig h t, 7 9 3 F .2 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 4 - 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ( s a m e ) . T o s u p p o r t a di ff er entou t com e bas ed on R enee ’ s t es t i m on y, the j ury w ou l d h ave had t o rej ec t the s ubs t a nt i a l phy s i c a l a nd othe rt e s t i m oni a l e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l i n f a vorof a s ix - y e a r - o ld g ir l’s in c o n s is te n t te s tim o n y a b o u t a n a lte r c a tio n th a t s h e a lle g e d ly w itn e s s e d a y e a rb e f

o r e a n d u p o n w h ic h h e rf a th e r ’s f r e e d o m d e p e n d e d . S im p ly p u t, S u lliv a n h a s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h a r e a s o n ab le p r o b a b ility o f s u c h a r e s u lt. A cc o rd in g ly, w e c o n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y d eter m in ed th at R en ee ’s t e s t i m ony l a c ke d c r e di bi l i ty a nd thus tha tS ul l i va n ha s f a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h tha theThe dissent ac knowledg es that “[t] he inconsistencie s reg ardingwhether or not Smith had 9 a knif eindic atethat Rene e ’ste stimony wo uld argua bly no t ha vec ha ng e d th eoutc omewi th reg ard to Sullivan’s self-de fenseclaim.” DissentingOp. at pg . 36. The dissent argues instead that Reneewas c onsistent in her testimony that Smith was the ag gressor a nd that her te stimony on that one point could havechang ed the outcomefrom murder to manslaughter. What the dis sent i gno re s is that Rene e ’ste stimony wh olly la c ke d c re dib ili ty . H e r cha ng e d te stimony

its e lf and the overwhe lming physical and te stimoni al evidenc e re futingit – including Sullivan’s own trial te stimony

– did n ot s imp ly

un dermineher cre dib ili ty on iso late d p oints; it m a deher who lly unbelievable . Acc ording ly , Sulli van has f ailed to establish a reasona ble proba bility that Renee ’s te stimony wo uld havea ff e c te d th eoutc omeof

histrial. 33 w as p rej u d i ced b y h i s tri al co u n sel ’ s fai l u re t o i n t erv i ew R en ee o r cal l h er as a w itn e s s a t tr ia l. 9 I V . CONCL US I ON F o r th e f o re g o in g re as o n s, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f S u ll iv an ’s § 2254 pe t i t i on. A F F I R M E D .34

WI L S ON , C i r c ui tJ udge , di s s e nt i ng: W i l l i a m L . S ul l i va n i s a n uns y m pa the t i c c r i m i na l de f e nda ntw ho ki l l e d a m a n. T he m a

j or i ty opi ni on m a ke s tha tc l e a ri n i t s de s c r i pt i on of the f a c t s . Y e t , the S i xth A m endm entt o the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on ent i t l es hi m t o “ the A ss i st ance of C ou nsel for hi s def

ense ”, and t he S up re m e C ou rthas i nt erpret ed thatt o m ea n th e “e f f e c tiv e ” a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2064, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) . S ul l i va n’ s onl y de f e ns e t o the ch arg e o f fi rstd eg ree m u rd er w as th ath e act ed i n sel f-d efen se, an d th ere w as a cruci al w i tness avai l abl e t o t es t i fy i n sup po rtof thi s def ense . H i s l aw ye r’ s f

ai l ure t o i nt ervi ew the o n ly ey ew i tness w ho coul d corrobo ra t e S ul l i van’ s c l ai m of se l fd e f e n s e is s u r e ly in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. K i r k’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve pe r f

or m a nc e pr e

j udi c e d S ul l i va n. U nde r s t a nda bl y , the m a j or i ty f oc us e s onl y on Str i c kland ’ s pre j ud i ce pron g i n fi nd i ng thatS ul l i van f a i l e d t o pr ove i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . T he m a

j or i ty m us tf

oc us on the prej ud i ce pron g b ec ause K i rk’ s a ct i on s w er e utt er l y i neff ec t i ve un der Str i c kland ’s perf orm ance pron g. A s the m aj ori ty not es , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatK i rk w as aw ar e thatR enee w as the on l y e ye w i tness and n everi nt ervi ew ed her. A l aw ye r m a ki ng a s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on nott o puta w i tne s s on the s t a nd c a n m a ny t i m e s be d e f e n d e d a s r e a s o n a b le . Se e , e . g. , A l ex an der v . D ug ger , 8 4 1 F .2 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 5 ( 1 1 thAmazingly, Kirk tried to def end his dec ision by

rely ing on Renee’ s ag e. Imag ine if the 1 state adopte d a similar view–pe ople could commit murder a nd have thepolice interview no e ye wi tne sse s if

theon ly e ye wi tne sse s w e reyoungc hil dre n. We w ould b eoutrag e d at a prosecutor who failed to interview a sole child eyewitness in a murder ca se; we should be e qu al l y i nt o l e ranto f

a d e f e n s eatt o r n e y wh o b lun d e r s j u s ta s e gre g i o u s l y.

35 C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . A la w y e rc a n r a r e ly , h o w e v e r , c la im th a t it is r e a s o n a b le n e v e re v e n to ta lk to th e o n ly e y e w itn e s s to th e e v e n ts s u rr o u n d in g th e a lle g e d c r im e . D et erm i ni ng the fa ct s i s the m ostbasi c r equi re m entof bei ng abl e t o m ou ntan e f f e c tiv e ( o re v e n a c o m p e te n t) d e f e n s e . Se e H

ous e v . B alkc om , 725 F . 2d 608, 618 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( “P r e tr ia l in v e s tig a tio n , p r in c ip a lly b e c a u s e it p r o v id e s a b a s is upon w hi c h m os tof

the de f e ns e c a s e m us tr e s t , i s , pe rhaps , the m os tc r i t i c a l s t a ge of a l aw ye r’ s pre para t i on . ”) . A l aw ye r does nothave t o exp l ore e very hypo thet i ca l s itu a tio n th a t c o u ld h a v e p o s s ib ly o c c u rr e d . Id . If a l aw ye r, ho w ever , i s a w ar e that there i s onl y one ey ew i tness t o the event s a ti ss ue, the l aw ye r s ho ul d atthe very le a s t f in d o u t w h a t th a t w itn e s s s a w . Se e i d. ( “W h ile w e d o n o t r e q u ir e th a t a l aw ye r be apri vat e i nv es t i gat or i n o rdert o d i sc ern every po ss i bl e a venu e w hi ch m a y h u r t o rh e lp th e c lie n t, w e d o r e q u ir e th a t th e la w y e rm a k e a n e f f o r t to in v e s tig a te th e o b v io u s .” ) . K ir k d id n o t d o th is a n d th u s f a ile d h is d u tie s to h is c lie n t. 1 I di s a gr e e w i th the m a

j or i ty ’ s c onc l us i on tha tR e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony w oul d not have m att er ed. T he m aj ori ty hol ds thatR enee ’ s t es t i m on y, even i f a dm i tt ed atAlthough even this is debatable. The police inde ed never re covered the knifethat Renee 2 claimed Smith had. However, they never rec overe d Sulli van’s knifeeither. Theabsenc e of the knif edo e s n ot de finitive ly

me an th at it

did no t e xist. Sulli van re ceive d a sentence of life imprisonment for fir st degreemurder. I f convic ted 3 of manslaughter, hewould have be en sentenced to a maxi mum of 20 year s imprisonment. Ala. Code §§ 13 A- 6- 3(b) ; 13 A- 5- 6( a)( 2) . H a d this b e e n th ec a se , Sulliva n w ould b ec los eto 36 S ul l i van’ s tri al , w ou l d n othave changed the out com e bec ause of i t s i nt ernal i ncon si st enci es and i ncon si st enci es w i th the re stof the evi dence re gardi ng w hether S m i th ha d a kni f

e . I nde e d the r e w e r e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n R e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony th a t S m ith h a d a k n if

e a n d th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e in d ic a tin g th a t h e d id n o t. T h e m a jo r ity f a ils to r e c o g n iz e , h o w e v e r , th a t R e n e e ’s te s tim o n y w a s e n tir e ly consi st entw i th S ul l i van’ s c l ai m thatS m i th, w i th o r w i tho uta kni fe , w as ne ve r the l e s s the a ggr e s s or . B oth t i m e s w he n R e ne e of f e r e d s w orn t e s t i m ony , s he te s tif ie d th a t S m ith a tta c k e d S u lliv a n f ir s t. T he i ncon si st enci es re gardi ng w hether or notS m i th h ad a kni fe i nd i ca t e that R e n e e ’s te s tim o n y w o u ld a r g u a b ly n o t h a v e c h a n g e d th e o u tc o m e w ith r e g a r d to S ul l i van’ s s el f- defe nse c l ai m . N ever thel es s, because R enee ’ s t es t i m on y w as 2 un w aver i ng l y c on si st entw i th S ul l i van’ s c l ai m thatS m i th w as the aggress or, there i s s t i l l a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe j ury c ou l d h ave, atthe l ea st , foun d that S ul l i va n w a s m ove d t o a c tby “ a s udde n he a tof pa s s i on c a us e d by pr ovoc a t i on r e c o g n iz e d b y la w ” a n d r e d u c e d th e v e r d ic t to m a n s la u g h te rif p r e s e n te d w ith R e ne e ’ s t e s t i m ony . A l a . C ode §§ 13A - 6- 2( b) ; 13A - 6- 3( a ) ( 2) . A tone poi ntdur i ng 3completinghis sentencebeca use he w as sentenc ed on April 16, 1990. When pressed on this issue, the state back-pe daled f rom this statement without any clea r 4 explanation, perhaps realizing that this conc ession was c ompletely inconsistent with the state’s position that, even if Sulli van’s c ounsel’s failure to interview Renee satisfied Strickland ’s perf ormanc e prong , such failure would not haveprejudice d Sulli van. 37 o ra l arg u m en t, th e s tate, w h ich ap p ea re d m o re fo cu se d o n ar g u in g th at K irk ’s r e pr e s e nt a t i on s a t i s f

i e d Str i c kland ’ s per form ance pron g, even conceded that prej ud i ce exi st ed i f one as sum ed i nadequ at e per form ance : C ou rt : L et ’ s a ss um e thatthi s def ense att orney, w hat ’ s hi s nam e, T om m y K i ng? S t a t e : U h, K i r k. C ou rt : T om m y K i rk. H e had i nt ervi ew ed thi s l i tt l e gi rl , and h e had de c i de d, “ S he ’ s goi ng t o he l p m y c l i e nt . I ’ m gonna puthe ron the w i tness st and. ” S he’ d t aken the w i tness st and and she’ d t es t i fi ed that S m i th w as the aggress or, and n otS ul l i van, and S ul l i van w as de f e ndi ng hi m s e l f

. I f s he ha d t e s t i f

i e d t o tha t , c oul d tha tha ve l e d t o a conv i ct i on of a l es se r c harge l i ke m ansl augh t er , or even, uh , an a c q u itta l? S t at e: Y es. 4 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t p r o v id e s th a t p r e ju d ic e ta k e s p la c e w h e n “th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf

orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” Str i c kland , 46 6 U . S . at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at 2068. “ A r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty i s a pr oba bi l i ty s uf f i c i e ntt o unde r m i ne confi dence i n the ou t com e. ” Id . G i v en th e g reatp o t en t i al th atR en ee’ s eyew i tn ess t e s t i m ony ha d t o a f

f e c tthe out c om e of

S ul l i va n’ s c a s e by s uppor t i ng a c onvi c t i on of a l es se r i ncl ud ed charge, w hi ch w ou l d h ave r es ul t ed i n a short erse nt ence ,38

c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e o f th e p r o c e e d in g is u n d e r m in e d . B ec ause R enee w as the sol e e ye w i tness and con si st ent l y s up po rt ed S ul l i van’ s c l ai m thatS m i th w as the aggres sor, K i rk’ s f ai l ure t o so m uch as in te r v ie w h e ru n d e r m in e s th e o u tc o m e o f th e c a s e a n d p r e

ju d ic e d S u lliv a n . See Sande rs v . C ook , 99 F ed. A pp x. 77 8, 78 1 (9t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( un pu bl i shed m e m o r a n d u m ) ( s ta te c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g th a t f

a ilu r e to in te r v ie w a n d c a ll s o le ey ew i tness w as no tprej ud i ci al “ [i ] n a ca se i n w hi ch the det erm i nat i ve qu es t i on w as w he the rthe de f

e nda nti nt e nde d t o di s c ha r ge the w e apon, a nd w he r e onl y the t e s t i m ony of

the e y e w i tne s s e s w a s c apa bl e of pr ovi di ng di r e c te vi de nc e a s t o how the di sc harge occurr ed”) ; s e e a ls o , e .g ,. R i l e y v . P ay ne , 3 5 2 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 2 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2003) ( “ C ouns e l ’ s une xpl a i ne d f a i l ur e t o i nt e r vi e w a w i tne s s w ho w oul d ha ve sa i d thatthe vi ct i m i n ang erthrea t ened t o sho otR i l ey un derm i nes our confi dence in th e ju ry v e r d ic t r e

je c tin g R ile y ’s p le a o f

s e lf - d e f e n s e . W e c o n c lu d e , th a t . . . R ile y w a s p r e

ju d ic e d b y C lo w e r ’s o m is s io n .” ) ; A nde rs on v . J ohns on , 338 F . 3d 3 8 2 , 3 9 3 - 9 4 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to in te r v ie w o n e o f tw o a d u lt e y e w itn e s s e s w a s in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l) ; C ham be rs v . A r m ontr out , 907 F .2 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 1 ( 8 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to in te r v ie w o n ly ey ew i tness w ho coul d h ave c orrobo ra t ed defendant ’ s c l ai m of se l f- defe nse w as in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l) ; Mi tch el l

v. A yers , 309 F . S upp. 2d 1146, 115639

( N .D . C a l. 2 0 0 4 ) ( a tto rn e y ’s f a ilu r e to in te r v ie w “a n a v a ilab le w itn e s s w h o w o u ld ha ve c orr obor a t e d pe t i t i one r ’ s othe rw i s e unc orr obor a t e d t e s t i m ony a s t o the r e a s on p e titio n e re n te r e d th e G o n z a le z h o m e , s p e c if ic a lly , th a t h e d id s o o u t o f f e a rf o rh is s a f e ty a nd notf

orthe purpos e of

c om m i tt i ng the f

t ” w a s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c o u n s e l th a t p r e

ju d ic e d p e titio n e r ) . A l though I l a m e ntthe l ogi s t i c a l i nc onve ni e nc e of r e - try i ng S ul l i va n s o l ong a f te rth e e v e n ts h a v e ta k e n p la c e , th is d o e s n o t e x c u s e th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . S u lliv a n , u n b e c o m in g th o u g h h e m a y b e , s till d e s e r v e d e f f e c tiv e r e p r e s e n ta tio n . H e di d notr e c e i ve i t , a nd t o s a y tha the di d i s t o r e nde ri ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l cl ai m s vi rtual l y m ea ni ng l es s. I w ou l d there fore re m and t he ca se t o b e r etr i e d s o tha tS ul l i va n c a n ha ve hi s da y i n c ourtw i th a tl e a s tthe m i ni m um l e ve l of e f f e c tiv e r e p r e s e n ta tio n th e C o n s titu tio n g u a r a n te e s .