The Ho norab le E dm und A. Sarg us, J r., United State s D istrict Judg e for the S outhern D istrict of Ohio , * sitting by des ig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0537n.06 Filed: August 29, 2008
No. 06-4286 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT ) QU AM AI NE BR OOK S, ) ) P e ti ti one r -A ppe lla nt , ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE ) UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T ) COURT F OR THE NORT HERN v. ) DI STRIC T OF OHI O ) CA RL AN DE RSO N, Wa r de n, ) ) Respondent-Appellee. )
BEFORE: COLE and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and SARGUS, Distr ict Judge. * SARGU S, District Judge. Petitioner-Appellant Qua maine B rooks appe als the dec ision of the district cour

t denying his pe tition for a writ of ha beas c orpus. For

the re asons that follow, the dec ision of the district court is aff irmed. I. A. F AC TS Th e Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt Q uama ine B ro ok s ( “ Ap pe lla nt” or “ B ro ok s” ) w a s c ha

rg e d w ith
a ser ious assault ag ainst an infant f amily member, A ng elique Stratfor d. At the time of the incident, B rooks was a

twenty -y ear -old hig h school junior. He lived with his mother, Ge raldine2

B ro ok s, tog e the r w ithAn g e liq ue and a numbe r o f o the r e xten de d f amil y me mbe rs . At trial, the prose cution contende d that Br ooks assaulted Ang elique and inf licted seve re injuries resulting from “sha ken baby sy ndrome.” Michae l Brooks, ne phew of the Appellant, wa s an eig ht-y ear -old residingin the same home. H e testified at trial that he saw the appellant punc h Ang elique in her

back a nd side and a lso hold her upside down by her le g . Appellant denie d that he had a ny phy sical conta ct with the infant. While there w as no dispute that Ang elique wa s
sever ely injured, the e vidence ag ainst Br ooks included the testimony of Michae l Brooks, a

nd Br ooks’ fa lse claim that he w as at wor k or school at the time of

the assault, an a libi later discredited by

the prosec ution. B ro ok s w a s c ha

rg e d a nd tr ie d to g e the r w ithhis mot he r, Ge ra ldi ne B ro ok s ( “ Mr s. B ro ok s” ), wh o w a s c ha

rg e d w ithc hil d e nd ang e ri ng . M rs . B ro ok s a nd se ve ra l f amil y me mbe rs , other than A

ppellant, ar

rang ed to have one lawyer r epre sent both Mrs. Br ooks and Appe llant. B e f o r e t h e t r i a l b e g an , t h e t r i a l j u d g e e n g a g e d i nth e f o l l o w i n g c o l l o quy: TH E CO UR T: Ok ay . N ow , I do n’ t kn owthe fa c ts at a ll o f t his case . I t could be that ther e ar e fa cts that may be fa vorable to one of y ou and unfa

vorable to the other. Do you know that and do you understand that by

havingthe same attorney , there may be a f act favor able to you, Mrs. Br ooks, but beca use of it, it would be unfavor able to your husband [sic]? Idon’t know what y our attorney would choose to do in that instance
. Do y ou eac h understand that by havingone attorne y , y ou may be g iving up some of

y our own individual rig hts? Not rig hts in the te rm s o f c on sti tut ion a l but f a c tor s th a t ma

y inu re to your b e ne fi t even thoug h they

might hurt the othe r one. D o y ou understand that? DE F EN DA

NT QU AM AI

NE B RO OK S: Y e s. TH E CO UR T: Do y ou un de rs tand

that?3 DE F EN DA

NT GE RA L DI

NE B RO OK S: Y e s. TH E CO UR T: An d it ’s my un de rs tand ingthat you

c ho os e to e a c hh av e t h e s am e a t t o r

n e y? DE F EN DA

NT GE RA L DI

NE B RO OK S: Y e s. TH E CO UR T: Mr . B ro ok s? DE F EN DA

NT QU AM AI

NE B RO OK S: Y e s. THE COURT: Now, Mr. Jordan, I assume base d on y our competenc y

that y ou have g one over

conflict of inter est with your clients and that you have ke pt that in mind when review ing the evidenc e as you may

understand the evidenc e to be? MR. J ORDAN: I

have, your Honor. THE COURT: Howe ver, you and I both know by

experience that the evidenc e that come s out in the courtroom isn’t alwa y s as we anti c ipate it i s. MR. JORD AN : T hat’ s c or re c t. THE COURT: You under stand that y ou know if later shown that the re wa s a

c on fl ic t of

int e re st that in

ur e d to on e of

y our c lie nts ’ detriments, that is a g rave condition and a ve ry serious matter under the rules of e thics? You under stand that, and you are taking that risk? You under stand that, Mr. Jordan? MR. J ORDAN: Ye s, Iunderstand that, y our Honor. Duringthe trial, def

ense c ounsel ca lled Wadell J eff erson a s a def

ense w itness. J eff

erson lived in an apa

rtment direc tly

above the residenc e in which Ang elique wa s attacke d. J eff erson te sti fi e d th a t sh e kn e w that E la ine B ro ok s, a sis te r o f G e ra ldi ne B ro ok s, liv e d in the same
a pa rtme nt w ithAp pe lla

nt a nd his mot he r, and that A ng e liq

ue ’s pa re nts ha d le ft

An g e liq ue wi th Elaine B rooks. Def

ense c ounsel then attempted to e licit testim ony that Elaine B rooks suffe red a b re ak d o wn i nFe b ru ary

o f 1 9 9 8 , j u s tp ri o r t o An gel i qu e b ei n g i n j ure d
. T h e f

o l l o wi n g ex ch an ge4

oc c ur re d d ur ingthe tr ia l: Q Do y ou

kn owa pp ro ximate ly

ho w l on g An g e liq

ue sta y e d in the ca re of Elaine? A Un til lik e F e br

ua ry , th e se c on d w e e k in

– s e c on d w e e k in F e b r u ar y. Q Duri ngthat ti me pe ri od , d id you have an o c c a sio n to experience something unusua l with Elaine? A Ye s. Q Could y ou please descr ibe to the jury what that e xpe ri e nc e wa s? A She – MS. NAI MAN: Objection.

THE COURT: Approa ch the be nch.

- - - - - (A discussion was ha d at the benc h, on the re cord, out of the he ari ngof

the jur y :)

- - - - - THE COURT: Go ahe ad. MR. JORD AN : Yo ur Ho no r, a t th is time she is goingto testify that in Febr

uary of 1998 that Elaine suff

ere d some kind of a menta l brea kdown or what not, that they came up to her apar tment and that she hurt he r – hurt her children and she ha d to be taken a way by the police a

nd the ambulance to seek c are and that she w as treated and the n r e tur ne d b a c k to the ho us e jus t pr ior to t he tim e period of F ebrua

ry 22nd throug h Marc h 7th. And I believe at this t ime Elaine ha s been the re at the house the whole time that Ang elique wa s prese nt during the time and, ag ain, that my theory is that5 El a ine c ou ld h ave be e n th e on e wh o in jur e d th is child. THE COURT: Doesn’t this kind of c on fl ic t w ithy our o the r c lie nt’ s r ig hts be c a us e if this is t rue a

nd Ger aldine knew

of Elaine’ s violent t e n d e n c y an d

E l a i n e d i d

i nf a c thurtth i s b a

b y, wo uld n’ t th a t r e a lly

make y our c lie nt guil ty

of c hil d endang ering ? I sn’t this a conflict betwe en your clients here , Mr. J ordan, just the kind I questioned a l l t h r o u g h o u tt h e p e n d e n c y o f th i s c a s e ? MR. JORD AN : Yo ur Ho no r, sh e is g oing to que stion – she give s Elaine medica tion and she’s fine on the medication. Any kind of outbreak is – THE COURT: Well, then, what’s – MS. NAI MAN: First of a ll, if Ihear d the – did y ou state she is g oing to sa y that Elaine hurt those childre n? I s that what you said? MR. JORD AN : Ye s. MS. NAI MAN: I ’d like to know on what basis you are – Imean, a ll y ou showed me w as a c op y of a CF S r e po rt

that in dic a te d th a t Wa de ll said that Elaine sa id she was g oing to hur t the babies, whic h is hearsa

y . Wadell never

repor ted that her c hildren we re hur t. So, Iwould say

first of a ll that th is i s p e rj ur inghe rs e lf be c a us e sh e is making this story

more ser ious than it is and the statement wa s, Elaine said she w as g oing to do something, not that she did hur t any body
. THE COURT: Okay . That’s number on e . D o you

have any oth e r o bje c tio n to thi s testimony coming in and if so state your objec tion, please
. MS. NA I MA

N: Wel l, i t is – w e ll, it i s g oing to be a conf

lict espec ially

as to Ger aldine, not6 so muc h a s to Qu ama ine . A nd it’ s my understandingthat y ou had this witness on y our witness list from the beg inning a nd y ou knew what she wa s g oing to testify

to. THE COURT: Which is a total conflict to y our client, rig ht, which puts me in a po sit ion of po ssi bly g ra nti nga mis tr ia l he re be c a

us e y ou cannot put her

on to make the jury

believe that she is a dang erous pe rson and then some how absolve you by

saying your client is g oing to sa y that I tr us te d h e r. Th a t is lud ic ro us . MR. J ORDAN: BJ said she trusted her also. TH E CO UR T: Ido n’ t c are . It’ s a c on fl ic t of

int e re st, numbe r o ne . N umb e r t wo , if y ou want to show Elaine’ s a violent person, br ing on Elaine. You a

re not g oing g et into hear say . Ev e ry thi ngy ou have g ott e n is he ars ay

and qu ite fra nkly Ididn’t hear

– Idon’t know why

Ididn’t hear an objec tion earlier . Sustained. (JA 868-872). L ater , defe nse counse l asked Jeffer son:

Q Do y ou know how those scr atche s came to be on A n g e l i qu e ’ s b o dy? T H E C O U R T : Y e s o r n o o n l y. A Ye s. Q Ho w d id you

kn owthi s? A Iwent to a mee ting at the –
MS. NAI MAN: Objection. TH E CO UR T: Sus ta ine d. Sus ta ine d. Di d you se e the sc ra

tc he s7 occur ? THE WI TNESS: No. THE COURT: Move on. One more que stion on that iss ue you could ask. Q D o yo ukn o w a

p p r o x i m a t e l y w h a tt i m e yo uc am e d o w n s t a i r s o nS a tur d ay the 7th? A About 9:00. Q I’ ms o r

r y? A 9:00. Q Was Qu ama ine pr e se nt? A No. Q Di d you

have oc c a sio n to te ll G e ra ldi ne any thi ngwi th r e g ard s to Mic ha e l and Ang elique? A Ye s. Q An d w hat di d you te ll the m? MS. NAI MAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Approac h the benc h.

- - - - - (A discussion was ha d at the benc h, on the re cord, o u to f t h e h e ar i n g o f

th e j ur y)

- - - - - TH E CO UR T: Yo u k e e p tr yingto e lic it hear say . First of a ll, I ’m g oing to tell you, y ou c ou ld h ave a sk e d a

bo ut t he sc ratc he s, y ou

c ou ld a sk did any one admit to y ou that they themselves ca

used the sc ratc he s. Ido n’ t kn owwh a t your a ns we r i s8 g oing to be . But you have to a sk the questions in a wa y the y do no t a pp e ar t o e lic it the he ars ay . I wi ll sustain objections alway s. So, that’s the question I meant that you could ask. Now , wait a minute. I don’t know what’s g oing on he re. What’s your objection? (JA 875-876). Th e jur y su bs e qu e ntl y

c on vic te d App e lla

nt B ro ok s o f f

e lon iou s a ssa

ult and c hil d endang ering , and he w as sentenc ed to serve a ter m of eleve n y ear s in prison. Mrs. Brooks w as
c on vic te d o f c hil d e nd ang e rm e nt. B. P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND F oll ow ingthe ir

c on vic tio ns , App e lla

nt a nd his mot he r r e ta ine d a

no the r a tto rn e y , a nd bo th appea led their c onvictions. No issues relate d to trial counsel’s potential c onflict of intere st were raised on dir ect a

ppeal. The Ohio Court of Appea ls for the Eig hth District affir med the
c on vic tio ns on

Marc h 3 0, 20 00 . App e lla nt t he re a ft e r f

ile d a tim e ly a pp e a l to the Oh io S up re me Court, which dismissed the appea l for fa ilure to comply with a serie s of filing require ments. Appellant then f

iled a Motion for De lay ed Appe al in the Ohio Supreme Court, whic h the Court denied on Nove mber 22, 2000. Br ooks also filed a timely Application for Re openingunder O hio App. R. 26(B) , which the Ohio Court of Appe als denied on Aug ust 21, 2001. Brooks a ppeale d the denial of

that application to the Ohio Supreme Court, which denied r elief on D ece mber 5, 2001. On J uly 22, 2002, Br ooks filed a pe tition i n fede ral district cour t seekinga wr it of habea s
c or pu s. Th e pe tit ion

c on ta ins fo ur

c la ims inc lud ing : ( 1) tr ia l c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e and

sh ou ld have w ithdrawn fr om the case in light of a n actua l conflict of inter est; (2) the tria l court er red by9

no t de c lari nga

mis tr ia l, g ive n a

n a c tua l c on fl ic t of

int e re st o n b e ha lf

of tr ia l c ouns e l; (3 ) a pp e llate c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e by fa ili ngto r a ise me ri tor iou s is su e s o n a pp e a l; ( 4) the state appellate court e rre d by

ref using to re open the a

ppellant’s appe al despite e vidence demonstrating
a c on fl ic t of

int e re st o n th e pa

rt of bo th t ri a l and a pp e llate c ouns e l. On August 19, 2003, the Mag istrate Judge f or the Nor

thern District of O hio issued a Re po rt and Re c omm e nd a tio n f

ind ingme ri t a s to a ll f

our gro un ds fo r r e lie f. Th e Ma g ist rate J udg e first found that trial counsel had a n actua l conflict of inter est which be came appar ent during the testimony

of Wadell J eff

erson. The Mag istrate Judge a lso concluded that the trial jud g e e xclu de d Jef

fe rs on ’s te sti mony

be c a us e of the a pp are nt c on fl ic t, a

nd inc or re c tly
c ha ra c te ri zed he r t e sti mony

a s h e ars ay . T he Ma g ist

rate Judg e fo un d th a t tr ia l c ouns e l f a ile d to purs ue or e lic it t e sti mony

re g ard ingthe a lle g e d v iol e nt b e havio r o f E la ine B ro ok s, wh ic h c ou ld have e x culpated the appellant while inc ulpating Mr s. Br ooks. Ba sed upon these c onclusions, the Ma g istrate Judg e re c omm e nd e d th a t a c on dit ion a l w ri t be g ra

nte d d ir e c tin g the state of Oh io t o
re tr y the a pp e lla nt o r, a lte rn a tiv e ly , to dir e c t th e re sp on de nts to a c c or d B ro ok s a ne w a pp e a l. The district cour

t disag ree d with the rec ommendation, and found that Brooks ha d knowing ly

and voluntarily

waived the conflict of inter est befor e the tria l beg an. Additionally , the district judge conclude d that, if the prof err ed testimony

was prope rly

excluded as constituting inadmissible hearsa

y , no actua l conflict of inter est could have arisen. T he cour t concluded, a s did the state appe llate cour t, that the proff

er ma de by

trial counsel wa s muddled as to whether the witness could or c ould not testify as to persona l knowledg e. Given the lack of clar ity , the alleg ed inconsistency

betwee n the witness’s testimony and prior statements, tog ether with other evide nce inculpating the appe llant, the district court conc luded that exclusion of the proff ere d testimony10

“did not violate constitutional standards of due proce ss.” Brooks v. Bobby , 2 00 6 U .S. Di st. L EXI S 59205 (N.D. Ohio Aug . 22, 2006). Appellant now a

ppeals the de cision of the district cour t. Brooks c ontends that he wa s deprive d of his constitutional right to be r epre sented by an attorne y

who did not labor under

an actua l conflict of inter est. He a lso asserts that, contra ry to the decision of the district c ourt, he did not intelli g ently , knowing ly and voluntarily

waive his rig ht to be repr esente d by conflict-f ree
c ouns e l. II. The district cour

t had jurisdiction over this action base d upon 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which
a uth or ize s th e iss ua

nc e of a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s u po n a sh ow ingthat a

pe tit ion e r w a s in

state custody in violation of the United States Constit ution. Since the district cour

t did not hold an evidentiary hear ing, this cour

t review s the lower
c ourt ’s jud g me nt de novo
. Ramonez v . Berghius , 490 F.3d 482, 486 ( 6th Cir. 2007). III. Th e An tit e rr or ism

and Ef fe c tiv e De a th P e na lty

Ac t of 19 96 pr ov ide s: (d) An a pplication for a

writ of habe as cor

pus on behalf of a pe rson in custody

pursuant to the ju d gm ent of a State court shall not be g ra nte d w ithre sp e c t to any

c la im that w a s a dju dic a te d o n th e me ri ts in State court proc eeding s unless the adjudication of the claim - (1) r esulted in a de ci s i on that was c ontrary to, or inv olv e d a

n unr e a so na

ble a pp lic a tio n o f, c le arl y established F eder al law, a s determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or ( 2 ) r e s u lt e d

in a d e c is io nth a t w a s b a s e d o nan unrea sonable de termination of the f acts in lig ht of the ev i d en ce p re s en t edi nth e S t at e c o urt p ro ce ed i n g.11

28 U.S.C. 2254 (d)(1) a

nd (2). As this court held in W

ilson v. Parker , 515 F.3d 682, 691 ( 6th Cir. 2008): Under the “c ontrary

to” clause , a fede ral court may g rant ha beas r elief if the state c ourt arr ives at a c onclusion opposite to that reac hed by the Supreme Court on a question of l aw or if the state c ourt dec ides a ca se diffe rently

than the Supreme Court has decide d on a set of materia lly

indisti ng uishable fa cts. W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 40 5- 06 , 1 20 S.Ct . 1 49 5, 14 6 L .E d. 2d 38 9 ( 20 00 ); Bu

gh v . M itc he ll , 329 F.3d 496, 501 ( 6th Cir. 2003).

“ ‘[C]l e arl y e sta

bli sh e d F e de ra l law, a s de te rm ine d by the S up re me Court of the United States,’ refe rs t o ‘the holding s, as opposed to the dicta, of [ t h e S upreme ] C ourt’s dec isions as of the time of the rele vant state-c ourt dec ision.’” W illiams v. Bagley , 380 F.3d 932, 942 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g W illiams , 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.C t. 1495). Th e Sup re me Court

re c og nize d a s e arl y

a s Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60 (1942), that the Six th Amendment rig ht to the effe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel is violated if one attorney repr esents two co- defe ndants whose inter ests are in conflict. More rec ently , the Supreme Court has noted the da

ng ers of joint represe ntation, rang ing f rom a fa ilure to cha lleng e the a dmission of evidenc e dama g ing to one client, and f avora ble to the other, to the c onflict duringsentenc ing reg ardingclaims of the r elative c ulpability of ea ch def

endants. See, e.g., Holloway v. Ark ansas , 43 5 U .S. 47 5, 48 2 ( 19 78 ); W heat v. United States , 486 U.S. 153, 168 (1988). This appea l is premised upon the cla im that trial counsel labore d under a n actua l conflict of int e re st. Th e Oh io s tate c ourt of a pp e a ls c or

re c tly fr ame d th e iss ue a s f

oll ow s: I n o rd er t o establish ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel in this case, appellate counsel ha d to establish an ac tual co nflict exist ed. An a c tua l c on fl ic t wo uld no t e xist if it de pe nd e d on in adm iss ibl e e v id e n c e , s u c ha s h e ar s ay . . . [c it a ti o n s o mi tt e d ]. I f Wadell’s hea

rsay statements wer e unquestionably admissible, then12 there would have be en an a ctual conf lict of interest. The re c ould be no do ub t th a t tr ia l c ouns e l c ou ld h ave purs ue d a str a te g y wh ic h w ou ld incriminate one of his clients while i t also was a benef it to the other c lie nt. Thus the iss ue is the a dmi ssi bil ity of the he ars ay

state me nts . State v. Brooks , Case Nos. 75711, 75712 (O hio App. 8th Dist., Aug. 14, 2001)
. As the Ohio Court of Appe als noted, the c onstitut ional question of whethe r counse l la bo re d und e r a

c on fl ic t of

int e re st t ur ns on the a dmi ssi bil ity

of the te sti mony

of Wad e ll J eff erson, a s determined by

the Ohio Rules of Evidenc e. While an improper a pplication of such rules does not itself provide the basis for f eder al habe as cor

pus relief , an ac tual conflict of int e re st b y

tr ia l c ouns e l c ann ot b e ob viate d b y the e rr on e ou s e xclu sio n o f o the rw ise a dmi ssi ble evidenc e. This is particular ly the ca se if the e x clusion of evidenc e wa s based on the tr ial judge ’s
conce rn that admitting the testimony of Jeffer son would cre ate suc h conflict. An e rrone ous
e xclu sio n o f h e r t e sti mony do e s n ot a

vo id what w ou ld o the rw ise be an a c tua l c on fl ic t of int e re st. As trial counse l asked Jeffer son to testify reg ardingElaine B rooks, as set out above , the prosec ution made an objec tion, at which time the trial judg e conve ned a side -bar confe renc e and immediately

raised the issue of def

ense c ounsel’s conf

lict of interest. The prosec utor contende d that, if J eff

erson intende d to testify

that Elaine B rooks had hur t children on a

prior occ asion, such
s t a t e m e n t s w o u l d

b e i n c o n s i s t e n tw i t hh e r

p r e v i o u s s t a t e m e n t s an d

p o s s i b l y p e r

j ur y. I t is unclear whether

the trial judg e excluded Jeffer son’s testimony based upon tria l
c ouns e l’ s c on fl ic t of

int e re st o r o n th e c la ime d h e ars ay natur e of the te sti mony . F ro m th e e nti re ty of the tra nscript of Jeffer son’s testimony , howeve r, it is clear that the trial judg e viewe d her testimony reg ardingElaine B rooks as c onstitut ing ina dmissibl e hea rsay . Wadell was aske d if she knew how the scratches she sa w on the baby

wer e inflicted. The witness beg an her answe r by13

descr ibing a

meetingshe we nt to. The judg e cut of f her answe r and a sked her , “Did you see the
sc ratc he s o c c ur ? ” (JA 87 5) . Wh e n th e wi tne ss a ns we re d in

the ne g a tiv e , th e tr ia l ju dg e ma de it clea r that he vie wed he r testimony as inadmissible hear say . (JA 876). The re cord a

ppear s to substantiate the conc lusion of the trial court that the of fer ed testimony was inadmissible hea

rsay . Moreove r, the trial c ounsel did not make a pr offe r that would provide a

basis to conclude that the testimony was a ctually

admissible. Ohio Rule of Evidence 103(A)( 2) re quires a pa rty to advise the c ourt of the substanc e of the offe red e vidence that the cour

t intends to ex clude, unless suc h information is obvious from the re cord. As to whether

the proposed te stimony

by J eff erson wa s hear say , the district court
corr ectly observe d that, beca

use fe dera l habea s corpus re lief does not lie for err ors in the application of state law unless such e rror s result in the denial of a fundame ntally

fair tr ial, fede ral ha be a s c ourt s are no t pe rm itt e d to su bs tit ute the ir jud g me nt f

or that of a state c ourt

on a state evidentiar y ruling . (JA 1213-16). I t is well-settled “that it is not the province of a fe dera l habea s court to re examine state-cour t determinations on state-la w questions.” Es te llev . M c Gu ire , 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Thus, this Court has held that fe dera l habea s courts “‘ must defer to a state cour t’s interpre tation of its own rules of e vidence and proc edure ’ whe n assessinga habe as petition.” Miskel v . Karnes , 3 9 7 F. 3 d 4 4 6 , 4 5 3 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Al le n v . M orris , 845 F.2d 610, 614 ( 6th Cir. 1988)). I t stands to reason that this is true eve n when the pe titioner is not seekinghabea s relief

on the state c ourt evidentiar y deter mination at issue. Cf. Ad am s v . S mi th , 280 F. Supp. 2d 704, 721 (E.D. Mic h. 2003) (r ejec ting c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel for the f ailure to objec t to hearsa

y based on state court’s de termination under state law that testimony at issue was not he arsa

y ).14

I n this case, the tr ial court de termined that Jeffer son’s testimony would have be en hear say . I t is not t he provinc e of this Court to substit ute its judgment for that of the state tr ial
c ourt on thi s st a te -l aw e vid e nti ary de c isi on . A lth ou g h th e pr e c ise iss ue be fo re the Court is whether petitioner re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel due to the fa ct that counse l was laboringunder a

n actua l conflict of inter est, resolvingthat issue require s this C ourt to determine whether the proposed te stimony

by J eff erson wa s hear say . The re cord suppor ts the conclusion of the state c ourt s. To the extent petitioner is now claiming that his repre sentation was inef fec tive based on his trial counsel’s a

ppare nt failure to pur sue a de fense or investig ate the possibility that Elaine Br ooks may

have injure d Ang elique, that ar g ument was not ra ised on direc t appea l at any level. There is no evidence in the trial transc ript or elsewhere in the rec ord establishing whether the attorney did, in fact, fa il to investi g ate or pursue this defe nse. Also, no fa cts or evide nce w ere proff ere d or admitted at trial that mig ht lead to the conc lusion that Elaine Br ooks may have or did injure Ang elique or a ny other c hild. As the district court found, pe titioner had the opportunity

post-trial to investigate Elaine B rooks’ involvement; he did not take advanta g e of
any su c h p ro c e dure s to c re a te a re c or d e sta

bli sh inghis tr ia l atto rn e y ’s ine ff e c tiv e ne ss o r f

a ilure to pursue. Brooks , 2006 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 59205, *41-42. There is theref ore no r ecor d upon which this Court could find that trial counsel’s inef fec tiveness “unde rmined the prope r func tioning of t h e a dv er s ar i al p ro ce s s ” a n d re s u l t edi na f

un d am en t al d ef

ec tat tri al am o un t i n g t o a m i s ca rr i age of justice or violation of due proce ss, for which c ollatera l relief is available. See Strick land v.Gi ve n th e c on c lus ion that c ouns e l f

or pe tit ion e r d id n ot l a

bo r u nd e r a c on fl ic t of

int e re st, 1 the Court does not addre ss the question of whethe r B rooks had wa ived such rig ht in a constitutional manner. 15 W ashington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 (1 98 4) ; Ree d v. Farley , 512 U.S. 339, 348, 353 (1994). 1

III . F or the se re a so ns , th e de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRMED.