2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-19-2008 

# L u sick v . P al ak ovich P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3408

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

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Lusick v . P al akovich" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1423. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1423H o n o r a b l e J o s e p h E . I r e n a s , S e n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y, * s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 05- 3408 /05- 4203 

### DAVI D L US I CK ,

Appe l l ant v. J OHN P AL AK OV I CH , WARDEN; TH E D I ST RI CT AT TO RN EYOF TH E C OUNT Y O F P HI LA DE LP HI A; TH E A TT OR

NE Y G EN ERALOF TH E ST AT E O F P ENNS YL VANIA A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 01322) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er

A r gued February5, 2008 B efore: M C K E E and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es, and I R E N A S, D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( fi l ed: M ar ch 19, 2008)2

C l ayt on A . Sw eene y , J r . , E s qui r e ( A r gued) P. O . B ox 55441 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19127- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant R ober tM . Fal i n ( A r gued) A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or ney T hom as W . D ol genos C hi ef, Feder al L i t i gat i on R o n ald E isen b erg D eputyD i s t r i ctA t t or ney , L aw D i vi s i on A rnol d H . G or don Fi r s tA s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or ney L ynn A br aham D i s tr i ctA t t or ney J. H u n ter B en n ett , E sq u ir e 3 S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107- 3499 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge D avi d L us i ck fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habeas cor pus i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T her e the M agi s t r at e J udge i s s ued a R epor tand R ecomm endat i on s t at i ng thatL us i ck’ s pet i t i on s houl d be deni ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tappr oved, adopt ed the R epor tand R ecomm endat i on, and deni ed the p e titio n w ith p re

ju d ic e . L us i ck r eques t ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yfr om ourC our tpur s uantt o 283

U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) . W e gr ant ed thatr eques tforthe fol l ow i ng thr ee i s s ues : w hethert r i al c o u n se l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g a d e q u a telyto im p e a c h th e v ictim s’ te stim o n yw ith th e ir p rio r in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts; w h e th e r tria l co u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to o b ject t o h ea rsaytest im o n yfro m w itn esse s O ff icer Jo sep h S zo ttan d R o sem ary R o d rig u e z ; an d w h e th e r a p p e llate c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to p u rsu e b o th issue s. F o r th e f

o ll o w ing rea so n s, w e a ff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f L u sick ’s pet i t i on. I . Backg r ound B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e br i efl yr eci t e the fa ct s under l y i ng thi s appea l . I n 1994 L us i ck and G . K . , the mot herof the vi ct i m s , w er e tr i ed t ogetherfor s exual l yas s aul t i ng t w o m i nor s , fi ve- y ear - ol d H . K . and hers i x- y ear - ol d s i s t erS. K . T he j u ryf o u n d t h a tL u s i c k c o mm i t t e d a s s a u l t s o n b o t h v i c t i ms , a n d c o n v i c t e d h i m o n two c o u n t s o f i n v o l u n t a r yd e v i a t e s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e , two c o u n t s o f i n d e c e n ta s s a u l t , two count s of corrupt i ng t he mora l s of a mi nor , and cr i m i nal cons pi r acy . L us i ck w as s e n te n c e d to a n a g g re g a te te rm o f 1 2 to 3 5 y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. A f te r t h e a s s a u lt, a n e ig h b o r, M s . R o d ri g u e z , s a w H .K ., a n d m o m e n ts la te r S .K ., w ander i ng dow n t he s t r eet . A ft erques t i oni ng the vi ct i m s and s peaki ng w i t h a r el at i ve empl oy ed byt he Phi l adel phi a D epart m entof H um an Servi ces , R odr i guez c al l ed the pol i ce. O ffi cerSzottw as t he fi r s toffi cert o arr i ve atR odr i guez’ s hous e. T he pol i ce i nt ervi ew ed al l par t i es on l ocat i on, arr es t ed Lusi ck and G . K . , and t ook R odr i guez a nd t he4

vi ct i m s t o t he pol i ce s t at i on. A n O ffi cerR atka ( w hos e fi r s tname i s noti n t he r ecor d) i nt ervi ew ed both vi ct i m s and R odr i guez i ndi vi dual l y , r ecor di ng the i nt ervi ew s i n a form al pol i ce r epor t . A l s o on t he dayof the as s aul t , the vi ct i m s underw enta medi cal eval uat i on a t th e C h ild re n ’s H o sp ital o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. T h e re su lts o f th e e v a lu a tio n w e re n o rm a l, a lth o u g h e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted a t trial th a t th e yw e re c o n sis ten t w ith th e typ e o f a ss a u lt report ed. B ecause the m edical evaluat i on did not i nd i cat e anytraum a, the v i ct i m s’ te s tim o n yc o n s titu te d th e p ri m a ry e v id e n c e o f L u s ic k ’s g u ilt. L us i ck ar gues t hathi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o i m peac h H . K . at trial w ith h e r p rio r in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts in O f f ice r R a tk a ’s r e p o rt a n d f o r f a ili n g to obj ectt o al l eged he ar s ayt es t i m onyof O ffi cerSzot tand R odr i guez. L us i ck al s o ar gues th a t h is a p p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ilin g to ra is e th e s e is s u e s o n a p p e a l. F o llo w in g h is c o n v ictio n , L u sic k a p p e a led h is s e n ten c e to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e ri o r C o u rt , w h ic h d e n ie d h is a p p e a l a n d a f f ir m e d th e s e n te n c e . C om m onw eal th v. Lusi ck , 679 A . 2d 848 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1996) . L us i ck att empt ed t o appea l fur t hert o t he P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt , b u t w a s d e n ie d a llo c a tu r. C om m onw eal th v. Lusi ck , 685 A . 2d 544 ( Pa. 1996) . L us i ck then fi l ed a pr o s e appl i cat i on forr el i ef unde r P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s P o s t C o n v ic tio n R e lie f A c t ( P C R A ), 4 2 P a . C .S .A . § § 9 5 4 1 , et s eq . C ouns el w as appoi nt ed, and af t ert hr ee da y s of or al ar gum ent , the PC R A C our tdi s m i s s ed L u s ic k ’s p e titio n f

o r r e lie f. O n a p p e a l, th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt a f f ir m e d th e P C R A C o u rt . C om m onw eal th v. Lusi ck , 832 A . 2d 539 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2003) . O nce a gai n t he5

P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d a llo c a tu r. C om m onw eal th v. Lusi ck , 841 A . 2d 530 (P a . 2 0 0 3 ). I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 . B ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ied L u sic k ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n b a se d so lelyo n th e sta te c o u rt re c o rd , o u r re v iew is p le n a ry. Mars hal lv. Hendr i cks , 307 F. 3d 36, 50 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he s t andar d of r evi ew o f th e sta te c o u rts’ d e c isio n s a re g o v e rn e d b yth e A n tit e rro rism a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t o f

1 9 9 6 (A E D P A ). In p e rtin e n t p a rt, th e A E D P A sta tes th a t [ a ]n a p p lica tio n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s o n b e h a lf o f a p e rso n in cus t odypur s uantt o t he j udgm entof a St at e courts hal l notbe gr ant ed w ith re sp e c t to a n yc laim th a t w a s a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits in S tate cour tpr ocee di ngs unl es s the adj udi cat i on of the cl ai m ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a deci s i on t hatw as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on o f , c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d F e d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b yth e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; or ; ( 2) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he St at e courtpr ocee di ng. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). H er e, t he PC R A C our tand the Super i orC our tcons i der ed the mer i t s of the i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

c o u n s e l c l a i ms u n d e rth e a p p l i c a b l e f e d e r a l s t a n d a r d s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we r e v i e w L u s i c k ’ s c l a i ms u n d e rt h e d e f e r e n t i a l AE DP A s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. II I. A n a ly sis Fora dec i s i on t o be contr aryt o Supr eme C our tpr ece dent , a s t at e courtm us thave r eac hed a “ concl us i on oppos i t e t o t hatr eac hed bythe [Supr eme] C our ton a ques t i on of6

l aw ori f the s t at e courtdeci des a ca s e di ffe r ent l ythan the [Supr eme] C our thas on a s etof m at er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fa ct s . ” W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U. S . 3 6 2 , 4 1 3 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . An unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of pr ece dentoccur s w her e “the s t at e courti dent i fi es the corr ect governi ng l egal pr i nci pl e fr om t he [Supr eme] C our t ’ s deci s i ons butunr eas onabl yappl i es thatpr i nci pl e t o t he fa ct s of the pr i s oner ' s cas e. ” Id . T he s t at e court ’ s deci s i on m us tnot m er el ybe i ncorr ectorerr oneous , but“obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e. ” R om pil l a v. B eard , 545 U .S . 3 7 4 , 3 8 0 (2 0 0 5 ). T h e sta n d a rd u se d to a ss e ss w h e th e r tria l co u n se l w a s c o n stitu tio n a llyd e f e c tiv e is s t at ed i n Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) . C l ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el ar e al s o governed bythe Str i ckland s ta n d a rd . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Manni no , 212 F. 3d 835, 840 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . I n or dert o cl ai m i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , L us i ck musts how t hathi s “couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent ” and that“the defi ci entper form ance pr ej udi ced [ hi s ] defe ns e. ” S tr ic k la n d , 466 U . S. at687. H er e, t he P enn sy l van i a cou rt s properl yanaly zed w hetherL usi ck’s tri al and app el l at e cou nsel s’ per form ance s w er e def

i ci entand i f anys uch def i ci enci es w er e pr ej udi ci al , ans w er i ng no f o r b o th is s u e s f

o r b o th c o u n s e l. T he Penns y l vani a court s hel d t hatL us i ck’ s tr i al couns el w as notdefi ci entfor fai l i ng t o i m peac h t he vi ct i m s w i t h O ffi cerR atka’ s r epor tbeca us e t act i cal l ytr i al couns el di d notw antt o har as s t he chi l dr en bef or e the j ury . Fur t herm or e, the j uryal r eadyknew of i ncons i s t enci es i n t he vi ct i m s ’ m utual l ycorr obor at i ng s t ory , s o fai l i ng t o i m peac h t hem7

di d notpr ej udi ce Lusi ck’ s defe ns e. W i t h r es pectt o t he ar gum entthatL us i ck’ s tr i al c o u n se l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to o b

jec t to a lleg e d h e a rsa ytes tim o n yb yO f f ice r S z o tt and R odr i guez, t he Penns y l vani a court s hel d t hatunders t at e l aw the t es t i m onyw as a d m iss ib le, a n d L u sic k ’s c o u n se l w a s n o t in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to o b

jec t to a d m iss ib le evi dence . Fi nal l y , t he Penns y l vani a court s hel d t hatL us i ck’ s appel l at e couns el w as not in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ilin g to ra is e u ltim a te ly u n s u c c e s s f u l c la im s . “Ju d ici al scru ti n yo f c o u n sel’s pe rfo rm an ce m u st be h igh lyd ef ere n ti al . . . [a n d ] a cour tm us ti ndul ge a s t r ong pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ’ s conductfal l s w i t hi n t he w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance . ” Id . at689. W e ca nnotfaul tL us i ck’ s tr i al couns el forfai l i ng t o i m peac h H . K . w i t h O ffi cerR atka’ s r epor tw hen the j uryw as al r eady aw ar e of i ncons i s t enci es i n H . K . ’ s t es t i m ony . I tw as nei t herdefi ci entnorpr ej udi ci al for hi s t r i al couns el t o t r yt o avoi d appea r i ng t o bul l yher . W i t h r es pectt o t he al l eged he ar s ay t es t i m ony , on habeas r evi ew w e w i l l not“r eexa m i ne s t at e- cour tdet erm i nat i ons on s t at el aw ques t i ons . ” Est el l e v. McG uir e , 502 U . S. 62, 68 ( 1991) . D es pi t e aggr es s i ve a ss e rtio n s to th e c o n tra ry , L u sic k h a s f a iled to sh o w th a t th e d e c isio n s o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia cour t s w er e “obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e. ” R o m p illa , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 3 8 0 . A ft eror al ar gum ent , L us i ck s ubm i t t ed a l et t erpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 28( j ) , r eques t i ng thatw e expa nd the ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yand c o n sid e r th e u n c e rtifie d iss u e o f w h e th e r h is tria l co u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to att ac k the c o m p eten cyo f H . K . an d S . K . T h e P en n sy lvan ia co u rt s an d the D istri ct C o u rt8

r eas onabl yaddr es s ed thi s i s s ue w hen i tw as befor e them. M or eover , w e typi cal l ydo not cons i deruncert i fi ed i s s ues unl es s t he pet i t i onerfi r s ts eeks , and w e gr ant , cert i fi cat i on on ad d it ion al i ssu es. T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 2 2 . 1 (b). In th is c o n te x t, w e a f

f ir m .

B yth e C o u rt,

/ s /T hom as L . A m br o, C i r cui tJ udge