FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MAY 1 9, 20 09 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 77 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 01 15 8- CV-EAK-MS S ANTHONYLAMARCA, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF TH E STATE OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 19 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, BLACK an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Ant ho ny Lam arcasee ks a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (COA) t o app eal th ree cl ai m s fr om

hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 fed eral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . Lam arca , a Fl or id a p ris on er und er a s en te nc e o f de ath, was co nv ic te d o f fi rs t-d eg ree m ur de r in 19 97 . In a 5 7- pa ge ord er, the di st ric t co urt d en ie d Lam arca ’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n, i n whi chhe setforthsi x c la im s fo r rel ie f, an d d ecl in edto is su e a COA. Lam arca ti m el y ap pl ie d fo r a COA wit h t hi s C ou rt. We den y th e ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA be cau se Lam arcaha s fa il edto m ak e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng of t he de ni al of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ). I. BACKGROUND InNov em

be r 19 97 , Lam arcawas c on vi ct edof t he fir st -d eg ree m ur de r of Kev inFlynn , andin Feb ru ary 19 98 , he was sen te nc edto de ath. In two op in io ns , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt s umm ari zedth e fac ts ad du cedat t ria l, wh ic h we rep ro du ce i n p ert in en t p artbe lo w. Se e La mar ca v. St at e , 78 5 S o. 2 d 1 20 9 (F la . 20 01 ) ( La mar ca I

); La mar ca v. St at e , 93 1 S o. 2 d 8 38 (Fl a. 20 06 ) ( La mar ca II

). On t he aft ern oo n o f Decem be r 2, 1 99 5, An th on y

Lam arcam ethi s d au gh te r an d s on -in -la w, Ton y a an d Kev in Flynn , at a n ei gh bo rh oo d b ar fo r Ton y a’s bi rth day . Lam arcaha d re cen tl y be enrel eas edfro m

pri so n fo r a 1 98 4 c on vi ct io n fo r ki dn ap pi ng an d a tt em pt edsex ua l b atte ry

with aweap on . Lam arcaask ed

2Ton y a to bo rro w th e k ey s t o h er ca r, bu t Kev in refu se d a ndoff eredto dri ve Lam arcaho m e in st ead . The two l eftth e b ar atap pr ox im at el y 7: 45 p.m . Late r th atni gh t, atap pr ox im at el y 8: 30 p.m ., Lam arcareturne d t o t he ba r al on e an d t ol d To nya th atsh e h adto pi ckup Kevi n a t J os ep h Lam arca ’s ho m e in Hud so n C ou nt y . Jo se ph Lam arcais Ant ho ny Lam arca ’s fathe r. Whe n t he y arri ve d a t the ot he rwis e u no ccupi edho us e, Lam arcarap edTon y a. He th en ap pe aredfro m

a ba ckroo m

with arif le inhi s h an d andto ldTon y a th athe was go in g t o k il l h im se lf. He i ns tru ct edhe r to st ay pu t u nt il sh e h eardgu ns ho ts . After he lef t the roo m , Ton y a fl edto a ne arb y ph on e b oo th an d re po rte d t ha t s he he ard sh ot s b ei ng fir edat ane arb y res id en ce. Sh e g av e th e p ol ic e Jo se ph Lam arca ’s ad dr es s. Whenth e p ol ic e arr iv edat J os ep h’s h ou se , th ey di sc ov eredth e fro ntdo or lo ok edas t ho ug h i t h adbe enki ck edin , andaft er o bt ai ni ng Jo se ph ’s perm is si on to se arch th e res id en ce, the y fou nda ri fle . The po li ce b eg ansearch in g fo r Ant ho ny Lam arca . One d et ect iv e sa w Lam arcawalk in g a lo ng a ro adan d t he n o bs erv edhi m dro p the ob

jects he was carry in g a ndrun away . Ano th er d et ect iv e arr iv edat Lam arca ’s tra il er at2: 15 a.m . on Decem

be r 3. Th e d et ect iv e lo ok edth ro ug h t he be dr oo m win do w andsaw t he vi ct im ’s bo dy. Upo n e nt eri ng th e tr ai le r, he fou ndKevi n’s b od y on th e b edro om flo or , bu ll etcas in gs m at ch in g t he rif le reco ve redfro m

Jo se ph ’s res id en ce, an d 3bl oo d s pl at te redth ro ug ho utth e h ou se . Lam arcawas e ve ntua ll y arre st edin W as hi ng to n s ta te . At tria l, St ep hani e Parke r te st ifi edth aton th e n ig htin qu es ti on sh e h earda car d riv e up, s he lo ok edou t h er wi nd ow, an d s he saw Lam arcaan d a no th er m an walk in g fr om

th e carto th e fro ntdo orof Lam arca ’s tra il er. The y ap pe aredto be arg ui ng be cau se of t he ir h an d g es tu res . Park er s ta te d s he th enfel l as le ep an d h er fathe r subs eque nt ly awaken edhe r atth e b eh es t o f th e p ol ic e. Je remy Sm it h t es ti fie d Lam arcaarri ve d a t Sm it h’s h om e th e m orni ng aft er th e m ur de r, an d s ai d, “ I di d i t. I k il le d h im .” Sm it h a sk edwho he ha d k il le d, an d Lam arcasai d, “ Kev in . . . itreal ly suc ke d, b utI ha d t o d o i t.” Atth e ti m e Lam arca ’s cas e was be in g i nv es ti ga te d, Sm it h was wait in g t o b e se nt en cedfor vi ol at in g p ro ba ti on . Ja m es Mi ch ael Hug he s, Lam arca ’s form er fe ll ow i nm at e, te st ifi edLam arca to ldhi m in Ju ly 199 5 t ha t Lam arcawas p la nn in g t o k il l h is so n- in -la w bec au se he ha d rape d Lam arca ’s dau gh te r. Hug he s h adch arg es pe nd in g a ga in sthi m in Ch arl ot te Co un ty at th e ti m e Lam arca ’s tri al to okpl ace. At the pe na lt y

ph as e, Lam arcareque st edto rep res en t h im se lf a ndrefu se d t o pr es en t an y

m it ig at in g e vi de nc e. The t ria l ju dg e ap po in te d Lam arca ’s gu il t p ha se co un se l as st an db y

co un se l. At t he co urt’s re qu es t, Lam arca ’s cou ns el m ad e a 4st at em en t o f th e m it ig at io n s he wou ldha ve pre se nt edif Lam arcaha d n otwaiv ed

hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el an d t o p res en t m it ig at io n. Th e jury vo te d 1 1 t o 1 to im po se th e de ath p en al ty, an d t he tri al co urt ag reedwith thi s re co m m en da ti on . The co urt fo un d o ne ag gr av at in g fa ct or , pri orco nv ic ti on s fo r th e v io le ntfel on ie s i n 1 98 4, an d d et erm in edth e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e d idno t o ut weig h t hi s fa ct or . The tria l co urt s en te nc edLam arcato de ath. In 20 01 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed Lam arca ’s con vi ct io n andsen te nc e. La mar ca I , 78 5 S o. 2 d a t 1 21 7. In20 02 , Lam arcafil eda m ot io n t o v acat e th e jud gm en t an d s en te nc e u nd er Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 1, ra is in g 2 3 c la im s. The tria l co urt 1 co ns id ered22 cla im s dur in g afiv e-d ay ev id en ti ary he ari ng . On Sep te m be r 12 , 2 20 03 , th e tr ia l co urt d en ie d Lam arca ’s m ot io n. Lam arcaap pe al edth e tr ia l co urt’s or de r de nyin g re li ef t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt. He al so fil eda st at e h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on , rai si ng fou r gr ou nd s fo r rel ie f. In 2 00 6, t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s o rd er an d d en ie d Lam arca ’s hab eas pe ti ti on . La mar ca II

, 93 1 S o. 2 d a t 8 57 .

Two of these claims wer e re jected at a ca se mana g ement conf ere nce, a nd one cla im was 1 added a fter the confe renc e. The e videntiary

hearing took plac e at two se parate times. On May 29, 2003, the trial 2 court c onducted a

four- day evidentiar

y hearing. O n J une 27, 2003, the c ourt hea rd additional testimony . 5Lam arcath enfil eda pe ti ti on for fed eral habe as co rp us rel ie f in th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. In h is pe ti ti on to th e 3 di st ric t co urt, Lam arcarai se d s ix cla im s: (1) Lam arcarece iv edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l atth e g ui ltph as e o f hi s capi ta l tria l, (2 ) th e St at e fai le d t o di sc lo se ex cu lp at ory

ev id en ce t o t he de fen se an d p res en te d fa ls e an d m is le ad in g te st im on y , (3) Lam arcawas d ep riv edof h is rig htto pre se nta de fen se by the tri al co urt’s l im it at io n andex cl us io n o f ev id en ce an d abr id ge m en t o f Lam arca ’s cro ss ex am in at io n o f Ton y a Fl ynn , (4) Lam arcawas d ep riv edof h is rig htto a fai r tr ia l by the tri al co urt’s al lo wan ce an d a dm is si on of c ert ai n c ol la te ral act s, (5 ) Lam arca was de pr iv edof h is rig htto a fai r tr ia l b y anim pr op er re m arkm ad e b y

th e pr os ecu ti on , and(6) Lam arca ’s sen te nc e o f de ath was un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se th e St at e co m m it te d p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t i n t he pre se nt at io n o f Lam arca ’s pri or fel on y co nv ic ti on . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d re li ef o n a ll cla im s an d d ecl in edto is su e a COA. The co urt l at er d en ie d Lam arca ’s m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t an d a ga inco nc lu de d Lam arcawas n oten ti tl edto a COA. Lam arcaha s fil edanap pl ic at io n fo r a COA wit h t hi s C ou rt wi th res pe ctto th e fi rs t thr ee cl ai m s fro m hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on . L amar ca f

iled his first petition for a writ of habea s corpus with the district cour t on J une 3 22, 2006, and subseque ntly submitt ed thre e ame nded petitions to the court. On Ma rch 26, 2008, L amar ca f

iled his third and final ame nded petition for a writ of habe as cor

pus. 6II. STANDARD FOR GRANTING A COA

Thi s C ou rt m ay

is su e a ce rti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity “ on ly if th e ap pl ic an t h as m ad e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng of t he de ni al of aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ). Und er thi s s ta nd ard , a pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w “ reas on ab le juri st s wou ldfin d t he di stric t co urt’s as se ss m en t o f th e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s d eb at ab le or wro ng .” Sl ac k v. McDa ni el , 52 9 U.S. 4 73 , 48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 59 5, 1 60 4 (2 00 0) . The pe ti ti on er, h owe ve r, is no t re qu ire d t o s ho w he wi ll ul ti m at el y su ccee d o n ap pe al , Mil le r- El v. Co ckr el l , 53 7 U.S. 3 22 , 33 7, 1 23 S. Ct. 1 02 9, 1 03 9 (2 00 3) , be cau se whenwe co ns id er an ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA, “ [t]he qu es ti on is th e de ba tabi li ty of th e u nd erl y in g c on st itut io na l cl ai m , no t the res ol ut io n o f th at de ba te ,” id. at 3 42 , 12 3 S . Ct. at10 42 . Accor di ng ly, we “ sh ou ldno t d ecl in e th e ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA m erel y be cau se [we] bel ie ve [] the ap pl ic an t wi ll no t de m on st rat e anen ti tl em en t t o re li ef.” Id. at 3 37 , 12 3 S . Ct. at10 39 . To o bt ai n aCOA when th e d is tri ctco urt h as de ni eda habe as pe ti ti on on pr oc edur al gro un ds witho utreac hi ng th e m eri ts of t he un de rlyin g c on st itut io na l cl ai m , th e p et it io ne r m

us t s ho w (1) “

juri st s o f rea so n wo ul d fi nditde ba tabl e whe th er the di st ric t co urt was co rrec t i n i ts pro cedur al rul in g,” an d (2 ) “ juri st s o f reas onwou ldfin d i t d eb at ab le whet he r th e p et it io n s ta te s a v al idcla im of t he de ni al of aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” Sl ac k, 52 9 U.S. at48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at16 04 . 7“ Whe re a p la inpro cedur al ba r is pre se ntan d t he di stric t co urt i s co rrec t t o i nv ok e

itto di sp os e o f th e cas e, a rea so nabl e juri stco ul d n otco nc lu de eit he r th atth e di st ric t co urt erredin di sm is si ng th e p et it io n o r th atth e p et it io ne r sh ou ldbe al lo wedto pro ceedfurth er.” Id. , 12 0 S . Ct. at16 04 . III. DISC USSION A. Clai m One: La mar ca Recei ved Ine ff ect iv e Ass is ta nc e o

f Co un se l a t the Gui lt Pha se of His Tri al . Lam arcam ai nt ai ns he rece iv edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l b ecau se (1 ) hi s t ria l co un se l fa il edto in ve st ig at e an d p res en t the ev id en ce o f th e b en efi ts an d m ot iv at io ns Jer em

y Sm it h h adto tes ti fy , (2) hi s t ria l co un se l fa il edto ch al le ng e an d i m

pe ach th e te st im on y

of To nya Flynn, (3 ) hi s t ria l co un se l fa il edto cal l St ev e Sl ackas awitne ss to reb utth e te st im on y of To nya Flynn, an d (4 ) hi s tri al co un se l fa il edto cal l J am es Zaccag ni no to reb utth e te st im on y of J am es Mi ch ael Hug he s. 4

In his § 2254 petition t o the district court, L amarca a lso claimed he r ece ived ineff ective 4 assistance of counse l beca use (1) his trial counsel fa iled to call L ori Gallowa y as a w itness to rebut the a ssertion that L amar ca f led the state of

Florida afte r the murde r of Ke vin Fly nn, (2) his trial counsel f

ailed to ca ll a fore nsic expert to testify as to the abse nce of

phy sical evide nce of

the rape , (3) his trial counse l failed to investig ate or eff ectively cross-e x amine the State’ s ballistics expert, and (4) his trial counsel fa iled to file a motion to suppress evidenc e seized from J oseph L amar ca’ s home afte r the murde r. L amar ca ha s not requeste d a COA on c laim 1 of his § 2254 petition with respect to these issues. Acc ording ly , we do not conside r them. 8The b en ch m arkforjud gi ng a cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i s

“ whe th er co un se l’s co nduc t s o u nd erm in edth e p ro pe r fu nc ti on in g o f th e adve rs ari al pro ces s t ha t the tri al can no t b e rel ie d o n a s h av in g p ro du ceda jus t res ul t.” Stri ckl an d v . W

as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 6, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4 (1 98 4) . To m ak e su ch a sh owi ng , th e p et it io ne r m us t d em on strat e (1 ) co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , and(2) th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce p reju di cedth e de fen se . Id. at 6 87 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . Und er the fir stpro ng of t he Stri ckl an d tes t, the pe ti ti on er m

us t es tabl is h

“ co un se l m ad e err or s s o s eri ou s t ha t co un se l was no t fu nc ti on in g a s t he ‘ co un se l’ gu aran te edth e d efen da ntby the Six th Am en dm en t.” Id. , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . In ot he r wor ds , th e p et it io ne r “ m us t s ho w th atco un se l’s re pr es en ta ti onfel l b el ow an ob jecti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss .” Id. at 6 88 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 64 . Ju di ci al sc ru ti ny of co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce i s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l, id. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at 20 65 , and“ co un se l ca nn otbe ad jud ge d i nc om

pe te ntforpe rfo rm in g i n apa rti cu la r way in a cas e, as lo ng as t he ap pr oa ch tak en‘ m ig htbe co ns id eredso un d t ria l st rat eg y ,’ ” Ch an dl er

v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 14 (11 thCir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ) (quo ti ng Darde n v . W ai nw ri gh t , 47 7 U.S. 1 68 , 18 5, 1 06 S. Ct. 2 46 4, 2 47 4 (1 98 6) ).

9Und er the pre jud ic e p ro ng of Stri ckl an d , th e p et it io ne r “ m us t s ho w th at th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforco un se l’s u np ro fes si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at69 4, 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 . 1. Je re my Smi th Lam arcacla im s h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to in ve st ig at e an d p res en t ev id en ce o f un di sc lo se d c on si de rat io n S m it h re cei ve d fo r hi s te st im on y . Lam arcaco nt en ds hi s co un se l’s fa il ur e to di sc ov er Sm it h’s m is de m ean orret ai l the ft c on vi ct io n m ean t the jury was de pr iv edof i nf orm at io n su rro un di ng th e St at e’s al le ge d a ss is ta nc e to Sm it h. He ar gu es th e d is tri ctco urt erre d wh enit“ na rro wly ex am in ed ” th is cla im “ as si m pl y a fai lu re t o i m

pe ach Sm ith wi th a m is de m ean orco nv ic ti on .” The di stric t co urt m ad e two co nc lu si on s wi th res pe ctto Lam arca ’s cla im th athi s co un se l fa il edto effe ct iv el y im pe ach Sm ith. Fi rs t, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t he st at e co urts cit edth e p rev ai li ng law ( Stri ckl an d ) an d app li edth at la w to th e fac ts of t he cas e in a reas on ab le m an ne r in de te rm in in g Lam arca ’s co un se l was no t i ne ffec ti ve for fai li ng to im

pe ach Sm it h u si ng th e p rio r m is de m ean orco nv ic ti on . Seco nd , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t he cla im , to th e ex te ntitwas b as edon th e fai lu re o f Lam arca ’s cou ns el to un co ve r an d p res en t 10un di sc lo se d c on si de rat io n S m it h re cei ve d fr om th e St at e, was pro cedur al ly de fau lt edbe cau se th e cl ai m was n otpre se nt edin st at e co urt an d l it ig at edas a n in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m . Onl y th e se co ndco nc lu si on is pe rti ne nt 5 to ou r res ol ut io n o f Lam arca ’s app li cat io n fo r a COA b ecau se , inhi s ap pl ic at io n, Lam arcaha s n otarg ue d h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to im pe ach Sm ith wi th th e m is de m ean orco nv ic ti on it se lf. The habe as st atut e requi res pe ti ti on ers to ex haus t al l av ai labl e st at e la w rem ed ie s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (b )(1 )(A). “ A pet it io ne r m us t al ertst at e co urts to an y fed eral cla im s t o a ll ow t he st at e co urts anop po rtu ni ty to re vi ew an d c orrectth e cl ai m edvi ol at io ns of h is fed eral rig ht s.” Ji men ezv. Fla . Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 48 1 F .3d 13 37 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). “ Thu s, t o e xh au stst at e rem ed ie s fu ll y th e p et it io ne r m us t m ak e th e st at e co urt awa re tha t the cla im s as se rte d p res en t fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al is su es .” Sn ow de n v . Si ng le ta ry , 13 5 F .3d73 2, 7 35 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).

In his third amended § 2254 pe tition before the district c ourt, L amar ca a lso argued trial 5 counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto call Smith’s best friend, John Ehrke, as a w itness to testify Smit h was “ a known liar .” This claim, howe ver, w as not prese nted to the state c ourts in Smi th’s direc t appea l, his 3.851 mot ion for post-convic tion relief, or his state habea s corpus motion, and, as the district cour

t noted, L amarca did not deve lop this claim during the state evidentiar y hearing. A ccor dingly , L amar ca ha s not fulfilled § 2254’s exhaustion requirements with re spect to this claim, and, to the ext ent L amar ca r aises this issue in his application for a COA , we conclude the district court’s a ssessment of this claim is not debatable a mong jurists of reason. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct . at 1604; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)( A), (b) (3). 11The on ly ine ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m with re sp ectto Sm it h t ha t Lam arcarai se d i n s ta te co urt al le ge d h is co un se l fa il edto effe ct iv el y cro ss -ex am in e Sm it h wi th pri orco nv ic ti on s i nv ol vi ng cri m es of d is ho ne st y . Alt ho ug h Lam arcadi d p res en t a c la im reg ard in g S m it h’s al le ge d u nd is cl os ed co ns id erat io n fr om

th e St at e, th is cla im

ass ert ed Bra dyan d Gig li o vi ol at io ns by th e St at e—n otin effe ct iv en es s b y Lam arca ’s cou ns el . In h is ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA, Lam arcado es no t ad dr es s t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth is po rti on of hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m was p ro cedur al ly barre d b ecau se itwas no t ex haus te d i n s ta te co urt. He thu s h as fai le d t o s ho w “ juri st s o f rea so n wo ul d fin d i t d eb at ab le whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n i ts pro cedur al rul in g.” Se e Sla ck , 52 9 U.S. at48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at16 04 . W e d ecl in e to is su e a COA wit h res pe ctto th is is su e. 2. To ny a Fl

yn n Lam arcaarg ue s h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to im pe ach Ton y a Fl ynn with t he lac k o f ev id en ce s up po rti ng he r al le ga ti on s o f se xu al ba tt ery an d e vi de nc e co nt rad ic ti ng he r te st im on y ab ou t Lam arcabre ak in g i nt o h is fathe r’s ho us e inHud so n. Lam arcaori gi na ll y pre se nt edth is gro un d fo r rel ie f as cla im 3 i n hi s 3 .85 1 m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti onrel ie f, in whi chhe ass ert edhi s t ria l co un se l

12fai le d t o e ffec ti ve ly cros s- ex am in e Ton y a Fl ynn reg ard in g t he all eg edsex ua l

ba tt ery. At tria l, Lam arcawas re pr es en te d b y Ro n Ei de an d No ra Mc Cl ur e; Eid e, a 20 -y ear v et eran of the Publ ic Defen de r’s Offi ce atth e ti m e o f tr ia l, h an dl edth e gu il t p ha se , whi le McC lu re, a 1 6- y ear v et eran at t he ti m e o f tr ia l, was res po ns ib le fo r th e p en al ty pha se . Duri ng th e fi ve -d ay st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Eid e p ro vi de d ex te ns iv e te st im on y

reg ard in g h is tri al pre parat io n a ndst rat eg y , in cl ud in g h is de ci si on s re gard in g t he cro ss -ex am in at io n o f Ton y a Fl ynn . Bas edon th is te st im on y , th e st at e tr ia l co urt co nc lu de d Lam arca ’s cla im fai le d u nd er Stri ckl an d . Init s o rd er d en y in g t he cla im , th e co urt fi rs t ad dr es se d Lam arca ’s con te nt io n t ha t tri al co un se l fa il edto effe ct iv el y cro ss -ex am in e Ton y a Fl ynn co nc ern in g h er acco un t o f th e se xu al ba tt ery. The co urt n ot edEid e te st ifi edhe de li be rat el y li m it edhi s cr os s- ex am in at io n o f Ton y a to av oi d “ op en in g ado or ” fo r th e St at e to in tro du ce ad di ti on al in cri m in at in g e vi de nc e reg ard in g t he sex ua l b at te ry , in cl ud in g Ton y a’s S.A.V.E. exam in at io n a ndDNA evi de nc e ref le ct in g Lam arcawas a po ss ib le do no r to sal iv a fo un d o n To nya’ s b reas t, an d “ to pe rm it[Lam arca ] a 6 Prior to L amar ca’ s trial, defe nse counse l filed a motion to lim ine to exclude evidenc e 6 reg ardingthe alleg ed sexual battery of Tonya F ly

nn, which wa s denied. During the State’s direc t examination of Tonya, the de fense ag ain objecte d to the introduction of any evidenc e re lated to the sexual battery , and the c ourt noted the objec tion for the re cord. D efe nse counse l then attempted to impeac h Tonya on the lac k of phy sical evide nce; howe ver, the trial court, upon the State’s objection, wa

rned this line of que stioning could wa ive def ense’ s objection and a llow the 13m ean in gf

ul op po rtu ni ty to t el l h is ownst ory , a st ory th atwas c red ib le an d n ot co m pl et el y at o dd s wi th th e o th er t es ti m on y off eredin th e cas e.” The co urt al so rev ie wedth e tr ia l tran sc rip t an d n ot edLam arca ’s cou ns el “ ex te ns iv el y arg ue d t he la ckof DNA ev id en ce s urro un di ng th e se xu al ba tt ery du rin g c lo si ng arg um en ts .” Fi nd in g t ria l co un se l “ was no t i na tt en ti ve to th is is su e, an d was in de edful ly aware of th e si gn ifi can ce o f th e se xu al ba tt ery, ” th e co urt d et erm in edth e “ ta ct ic al de ci si on to li m itcro ss -ex am in at io n o f Ton y a . . . was so un d a ndwell withi n t he ran ge of p rev ai li ng pro fes si on al st an da rd s.” The tri al co urt the n turne d t o anu m be r of all eg edin co ns is te ntst at em en ts Lam arcacla im edhi s t ria l co un se l s ho ul d h av e u se d t o i m pe achTon y a’s te st im on y . It c on cl ud edno ne of t he st at em en ts pro vi de d aba si s fo r anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m . Spe ci fic al ly, wit h re sp ectto ev id en ce i n apo li ce re po rt al le ge dl y co nt rad ic ti ng Ton y a’s cl ai m th atLam arcaha d k ic ke d i n t he do or to hi s fathe r’s ho m e, th e st at e tr ia l co urt fo un d “ cro ss -ex am in at io n wo ul d n othave be en pr op er as th e al le ge d i nc on si st en cy wou ldno t h av e u nd erm in edTon y a’s cred ib il it y ,” an d “ [Lam arca ] fai le d t o a dduc e ev id en ce atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng to de ve lo p t he si gn ifi can ce o f th e al le ge d i nc on si st en cy .” Co nc lu di ng it s d is cu ss io n of th is cla im , th e co urt s ta te d, “ as [Lam arca ] ha s fa il edto de m on st rat e d efi ci en t State to introduce a dditional evidence to corrobor ate a nd reha bilitate Tonya’s testimony . 14pe rfo rm an ce o r th at[he ] su ffer edpre jud ic e, th is cla im

fai ls un de r Stri ckl an d

an d i s th eref or e d en ie d.” On ap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s de te rm in at io n wi th res pe ctto th is cla im . La mar ca II , 93 1 S o. 2 d a t 8 50 . After se tt in g o utth e te stforde m on st rat in g i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l u nd er Stri ckl an d , id. at 8 46 –4 7, the co urt n ot edEid e’s te st im on y reg ard in g h is st rat eg ic de ci si on to li m ithi s cr os s- ex am in at io n o f Ton y a Fl y nn “ to av oi d o pe ni ng th e d oo r to po te nt ia ll y

in cri m in at in g i nf

orm at io n t ha t wo ul d n otot he rwis e h av e b een adm is si bl e,” rec og ni zedsu ch de ci si on s ar e “ vi rtu al ly unc ha ll en ge ab le ,” an d acco rd in gl y

reject edth e cl ai m , id. at 8 50 . Inhi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on , Lam arcach al le ng edth e st at e co urts ’ co nc lu si on s t ha t hi s t ria l co un se l was no t i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to im pe achTon y a Fl ynn an d pr es en t ev id en ce d em on st rat in g t he in co ns is te nc ie s i n h er t es ti m on y . The d is tri ct co urt d en ie d t hi s cl ai m

on th e m eri ts , con cl ud in g Lam arcaha d n otm ethi s b ur de n of sh owi ng th atth e st at e co urts ’ de ci si on s wer e “ co nt rary to” or “ anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f” Stri cklan d , or t ha t the st at e d eci si on s’ were b as edon “ an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts .” Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 )-(2 ). Ju ris ts of r eas on wou ldno t d eb at e th e co rrec tn es s o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng . Firs t, Lam arcado es no t ex pl ai n, i n n ei th er h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n n orhi s 15ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA wit h t hi s C ou rt, h ow t he st at e co urts ’ de ci si on s wer e

“ co nt rary to” or “ anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f” Stri ckl an d . In fa ct , Lam arca do es no t ev endi sc us s the st at e co urts ’ le ga l co nc lu si on s i n h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n. Seco nd , Lam arcaha s fa il edto est ab li sh th e st at e co urts m ad e “ anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts .” Lam arcaha s n otpu t fo rth an y ev id en ce, m

uc h l es s cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce, t o re bu t the st at e co urts ’ de te rm in at io ns th atEid e m ad e a s tra te gi c d eci si onto li m ithi s cr os s- ex am in at io n o f Ton y a Fl ynn an d t ha t th e st at em en ts fro m

th e p ol ic e rep ort “ wou ldno t h av e u nd erm in edTon y a’s cred ib il it y .” Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ) (“ [A] dete rm in at io n o f a fac tu al is su e m ad e b y a St at e co urt s ha ll be pre su m edto be co rrec t. The ap pl ic an t s ha ll ha ve th e b ur de n o f reb ut ti ng th e p res um pt io n o f co rrec tn es s b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce.”) ; Pro ven za no v. Si ng le ta ry , 14 8 F .3d13 27 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“ The qu es ti on of wh ethe r anatt orne y ’s act io ns were ac tu al ly the pro du ctof a ta ct ic al or s tra te gi c d eci si on is anis su e o f fac t, an d ast at e co urt’s d eci si on co nc ern in g t ha t i ss ue is pre su m pt iv el y co rrec t.”) . Accor di ng ly, no juri stof r eas on wou ldfin d t he di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f th is cla im de ba tabl e, se e Sla ck , 52 9 U.S. at 48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at16 04 , andLam arcais no t en ti tl edto a COA with re sp ectto it .

163. Ste ve Sla ck

Lam arcaall eg es tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to cal l St ev e Sl ack as a wit ne ss to refu te Ton y a Fl ynn ’s ver si onof wh atoc cu rredwhen sh e returne d to th e b ar af

te r th e al le ge d rape . Lam arcano te s Sl ackto ldtri al co un se l, u nd er oa th , th atFlynndi d n otdi sc us s h er h us ba nd ’s wher eab ou ts with h im or s eem co nc ern edfol lo win g t he all eg edsex ua l b at te ry . Lam arcam ai nt ai ns th is st at em en t co nt rad ic ts Flynn ’s tri al tes ti m on y . Lam arcaori gi na ll y rai se d t hi s g ro un d fo r rel ie f in cla im

9 o f hi s 3 .85 1 m ot io n. At the st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Lam arca ’s lea d g ui ltph as e co un se l, Ro n Eid e, te st ifi edhe de ci de d n otto cal l Sl ackbe cau se Sla ckha d b een dri nk in g o n t he ni gh t o f th e m

ur de r an d h adpro vi de d i nc on si st en t s ta te m en ts to in ve st ig at or s. Eid e al so be li ev edSla ckco ul d h av e b een a da m ag in g wi tn es s fo r th e d efen se ; Sl acktes ti fie d i n h is de po si ti on th atLam arcawas ups etwhen he lef t the ba r, th at Ton y a Fl ynn was ups etwhen sh e returne d t o the ba r, an d t ha t To nya sai d Lam arca ha d rape d Ti na , hi s o th er d au gh te r. Afterhe ari ng bo th Eid e’s an d S la ck ’s 7 te st im on y , th e st at e tr ia l co urt fo un d Ei de ’s exp la na ti onforno t ca ll in g S la ck“ was well withi n t he ran ge of p rev ai li ng pro fes si on al st an dard s,” a ndco nc lu de d Prior to trial, defe nse counse l filed a motion in lim ine to prohibit the State from 7 introducingevidenc e of the alleg ed sexual battery of Tina L amar ca, which the trial c ourt grante d. 17Lam arcaha d fa il edto sh ow, as requi redby Stri ckl an d , th athi s co un se l’s

pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt . On ap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed , fin di ng th e d eci si on no t t o cal l Sl ackwas areas on ab le st rat eg y . La mar ca II , 93 1 S o. 2 d a t 8 49 . The co urt art ic ul at edth e te stforin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l u nd er Stri ckl an d , id. at 84 6– 47 , andth enco ns id eredEid e’s te st im on y at t he st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , id. at84 9. Co nc lu di ng th e fac ts un de rlyin g t ria l co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f Sl ack ’s cred ib il it y

“ were s ub st an ti at ed ,” th e co urt d et erm in edth e cl ai m was p ro pe rly de ni ed . Id

. Lam arcaag ai n ra is edth is cla im in hi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on , arg ui ng Sla ckco ul d ha ve refu te d To nya Flynn’s t es ti m on y an d h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pre se nt“ th is cru ci al co nt rad ic ti ng im pe ach m en t i nf

orm at io n t o t he jury. ” The di st ric t co urt re

jecte d t hi s cl ai m , con cl ud in g Lam arcaha d “ fai le d t o c it e an y cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law wh ic h e st ab li sh es th atth e st at e co urt’s re so lu ti on of th is cla im was i m pr op er o r in co rrec t.” As wi th hi s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e cl ai m reg ard in g t he im

pe ach m en t o f Ton y a Fl ynn , Lam arcado es no t ci te an y cas e la w, in cl ud in g Stri ckl an d , inhi s di sc us si on of t hi s cl ai m

inhi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on . Furt he rm or e, Lam arcado es no t pr ov id e, in eit he r hi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on or h is ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA, cl ear a nd 18co nv in ci ng ev id en ce t o re fu te th e st at e co urts ’ de te rm in at io ns th atEid e m ad e a

ta ct ic al de ci si on no t t o c al l Sl ackan d t he fact s und erl y in g Ei de ’s ass es sm en t o f Sl ack ’s cred ib il ity

were s ub st an ti at ed . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ); Pro ven za no , 14 8 F .3dat 1 33 0. Acco rd in gl y , reas on ab le juri st s wo ul d n otde ba te th e d is tri ct co urt’s co nc lu si on s t ha t the st at e co urts ’ de ci si on s wer e n ot“ co nt rary to” or “ an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f” Stri ckl an d , or b as edon “ anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts .” Se e Sl ac k, 52 9 U.S. at48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at16 04 ; 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 )-(2 ). W e d ecl in e to is su e a COA with re sp ectto th is cla im . 4. Ja mes Za cca gn in o Lam arcaarg ue s t ria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to pre se ntth e te st im on y of J am es Zaccag ni no to reb utth e te st im on y of J am es Mi ch ael Hug he s. Hug he s t es ti fie d a t tria l Lam arcaha d t ol d h im th athe was g oi ng to ki ll hi s so n- in -la w. Hug he s i nf

orm edlaw en fo rcem en t Zac cag ni no was p res en t dur in g t he co nv ers at io n. Whenqu es ti on ed , Zaccag ni no st at edhe ne ve r he ardLam arcam ak e su ch a st at em en t. Lam arcam ai nt ai ns Zaccag ni no ’s tes ti m on y wou ldha ve co nt rad ic te d Hu gh es ’s tes ti m on y . This gro un d fo r rel ie f was pre se nt edto th e st at e co urts as c la im

8 i n Lam arca ’s 3.8 51 m ot io n. The st at e tr ia l co urt h eardtes ti m on y fro m bo th Zaccag ni no an d Ei de on th is cl ai m at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Eide tes ti fie d h e ch os e n otto cal l Zac cag ni no as 19a wit ne ss be cau se Zaccag ni no ha d h eari ng di ffi cu lt ie s, was a co nv ic te d fe lo n

se rv in g ali fe s en te nc e, an d c ou ldno t s ay un equi vo cal ly he was in th e p ris on y ard wit h Lam arcawhen th e st at em en ts were m ad e. Fu rth erm or e, Eid e in di cat edhe was co nc ern edab ou t an y m en ti on of “ pr is on y ard ” in fro ntof the jury. The tria l 8 co urt fo un d t hi s t es ti m on y cred ib le . It al so no te d Zac cag ni no ha d tro ub le he ari ng atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , ans weri ng th e fi rs t que st io n a sk edof h im in co rrec tl y . 9 Bas edup on th e te st im on y at the ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ria l co un se l’s t act ic al de ci si on “ was well withi n t he ran ge of p rev ai li ng pro fes si on al st an da rd s.” Itals o d et erm in edLam arcaha d fa il edto sh ow t he ou tc om e wou ld ha ve di ffer edif Zac cag ni no ha d t es ti fie d. Acco rd in gl y , th e tr ia l co urt fo un d t he cl ai m fai le d u nd er Stri cklan d . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt uph el d t he tri al co urt’s d en ia l o f th is cla im . La mar ca II

, 93 1 S o. 2 d a t 8 49 . After s et ti ng forth th e st an dardun de r Stri ckl an d , id. at 8 46 –4 7, the co urt ad dr es se d e ach of Lam arca ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s, i nc lu di ng th e fai lu re t o c al l Zac cag ni no as awitne ss . W it h re sp ect to th is cla im , th e co urt fo un d t he fact s u nd erl y in g t ria l co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f Prior to trial, defe nse counse l filed a motion in lim ine to prohibit the State from 8 introductingevidenc e or te stimony reg arding

L amarca’ s criminal convictions and stints in prison, which the tria l court grante d. Q: Okay . How ar e you employed? 9 A: How am I

doing? P retty

g ood. 20Zacca gn in o’s cr ed ib il it y were s ub st an ti at edat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , and de te rm in edth e d eci si on no t t o c al l Zac cag ni no was areas on ab le st rat eg y . Id. at 84 9. Itth us co nc lu de d t he tri al co urt p ro pe rly den ie d t he cla im . Id. Inhi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on , Lam arcam ai nt ai ne d h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to cal l Zac cag ni no as awitne ss , arg ui ng hi s t es ti m on y wou ldha ve cas t

“ si gn ifi can t d oubtab ou t the ve raci ty of Hug he s’ tes ti m on y .” Acco rd in g t o Lam arca , Zaccag ni no ’s tes ti m on y at t he st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng “ no t o nl y reb ut te d Hu gh es [si c] tes ti m on y th atMr. Lam arcavo ic edth e in te ntto ki ll hi s s on in -la w, bu t al so m ad e itcle ar tha t Hu gh es ha d c on co ct edhi s wh ol e ta le .” Lam arca al so no te d, wi th ou t ci ta ti on to th e rec or d, t ha t Zac cag ni no ’s hea rin g p ro bl em s d id no t ex is t i n J ul y

19 95 , th e ti m e o f th e al le ge d i nc ul pa to ry st at em en ts . The d is tri ct co urt re jecte d t hi s cl ai m , con cl ud in g t ha t Lam arcaha d fa il edto cit e an y factua l erro rs in th e st at e co urt’s re so lu ti on of t he cla im an d t ha t the st at e co urts ap pl ie d th e co rrec t Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt . No re as on ab le juri stwou ldde ba te th e d is tri ctco urt’s as se ss m en t o f th is cl ai m . Se e Sla ck , 52 9 U.S. at48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at16 04 . In h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n, Lam arcado es no t ar gu e th e st at e co urts ’ de ci si on s wer e “ co nt rary to” or a n

“un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” of c le arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Nor d oe s Lam arcapo in t t o a ny “un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e 21fact s” on th e p artof t he st at e co urts . Se e id. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). Lam arcapro vi de s n o

supp ort fo r hi s co nt en ti on th atZaccag ni no di d n otha ve he ari ng pro bl em s i n 1 99 5, an d h e ig no res th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s co nc lu si on s re ga rd in g t he cred ib il ity of Ei de ’s an d Zac cag ni no ’s tes ti m on y . Once a ga in , Lam arcasi m pl y rai se s t he same exac t arg um en ts he pre se nt edto th e st at e co urts , witho utex pl ai ni ng ho w th e st at e co urts ’ res ol ut io ns of t hi s cl ai m were erro ne ou s. We decl in e to is su e a COA. B. Clai m Two : La mar ca ’s Due Pr oc es s Ri gh ts W er e Vio la te d When th e Sta te Fai le d t o Disc lo se Excu lp at or y Evi de nc e to th e Def

en se an d Pr es en te d Fal se an d Misl ea di ng

Tes ti mon y Lam arcacla im s t he Sta te vi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts forno t d is cl os in g be ne fit s J am es Mi ch ael Hug he s an d J eremy Sm it h re cei ve d fo r th ei r te st im on y an d fo r pe rm it ti ng fal se tes ti m on y fro m Hug he s an d S m it h. In hi s C OA app li cat io n, Lam arcam ai nt ai ns th e fi nd in g o f th e st at e co urts an d t he di st ric t co urt tha t a d eal is a requi rem en t fo r a Bra dy vi ol at io n i s co nt rary to an d an u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y

est ab li sh edlaw, ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba gl ey , 47 3 U.S. 66 7, 1 05 S. Ct. 3 37 5 (1 98 5) . He ass ert s “ [t]he de la y in sen te nc in g Hu gh es [un ti l aft er Lam arca ’s tri al ] in an d o f it se lf wa s a f actth atwas re qu ire d t o b e d is cl os ed .” Lam arcaals o a rg ue s co m m un ic at io ns be twee n t he pro se cu ti on in hi s ca se an d t he pr os ecu ti on in Hug he s’s ca se sh ou ldhave be entu rn edov er t o t he de fen se . W it h res pe ctto Sm it h, Lam arcacla im s t he Sta te sh ou ldha ve di sc lo se d tha t o ne of i ts 22pr os ecu to rs was p res en t atSm it h’s s en te nc in g h eari ng . Lam arcarai se d t hi s cl ai m

in two parts of h is 3.8 51 m ot io n— cl ai m 8 an d c la im

12 —i n wh ic h h e al le ge d Hug he s an d S m it h re cei ve d “ de al s,” “be ne fit s,” o r “ ag reem en ts ” fro m th e St at e. Und er Bra dyv. Mar

ylan d , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 7, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4, 1 19 6– 97 (19 63 ),

“ th e supp res si on by the pro se cu ti on of e vi de nc e fav or ab le to anaccu se d upo n reque stvi ol at es du e p ro ces s wh ere t he ev id en ce i s m at eri al eit he r to gu il t o r to pu ni sh m en t, i rres pe ct iv e o f th e g oo d fa it h o r ba d fa it h o f th e p ro se cu ti on .” A pr os ecu to r’s ob li ga ti onto di sc lo se ev id en ce p ur su an t t o Bra dy , ho wev er, i s n ot li m it edto th e d is cl os ur e o f po te nt ia ll y ex cu lp at ory

ev id en ce; rathe r, du e p ro ces s al so requi res di sc lo su re o f im pe ach m en t ev id en ce fo r cro ss -ex am in at io n p ur po se s. Bag le y , 47 3 U.S. at67 6, 1 05 S. Ct. at33 80 . Thu s, wh enth e cre di bi li ty of a wit ne ss is at i ss ue , th e p ro se cu ti on als o i s re qu ire d t o d is cl os e “ ev id en ce o f an y un de rs ta nd in g o r ag reem en t as to a fu tu re p ro se cu ti on .” Gig li o v . Uni te d Sta tes , 40 5 U.S. 1 50 , 15 4– 55 , 92 S. Ct. 7 63 , 76 6 (1 97 2) . Furt he rm or e, un de r Gig li o , th e pr os ecu ti on ha s a dut y

to co rrec t fa ls e st at em en ts “ [w]hena wit ne ss co nc eal s, th ro ug h fa ls e te st im on y , hi s b ia s ag ai ns t the de fen da nt , andth e Gov ern m en t kn ows th e wit ne ss ha s t es ti fie d fa ls el y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mer os , 86 6 F .2d13 04 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ).

23To p rev ai l o n a Bra dycla im , th e p et it io ne r m us t es tabl is h “ (1 ) th e go ve rn m en t p os se ss edev id en ce fa vo rab le to hi m ; (2 ) th e d efen da ntdi d n ot po ss es s t he ev id en ce an d c ou ldno t h av e o bt ai ne d i t wi th reas on ab le di li ge nc e; (3) th e g ov ern m en t s up pr es se d t he fav or ab le ev id en ce; an d (4 ) th e ev id en ce was m at eri al .” Dav is v. Terry , 46 5 F .3d12 49 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Evi de nc e is m at eri al if t he re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t a d iff eren t re su ltwou ldha ve oc cu rredha d t he ev id en ce b een di sc lo se d. Kyl es v. W hi tl ey , 51 4 U.S. 4 19 , 43 3, 11 5 S . Ct. 1 55 5, 1 56 5 (1 99 5) . In turn, a “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty” is u nd ers to odto be “ a p ro babi li ty suf

fic ie ntto un de rm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e.” Bag le y , 47 3 U.S. at 6 82 , 10 5 S . Ct. at33 83 . Afte r a fi ve -d ay

ev id en ti ary he ari ng du rin g wh ic h “ m uc h was m ad e . . . ov er whe th er Hu gh es rece iv eda be ne fitor p ro m is e in ex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y ,” th e st at e tr ia l co urt d et erm in edLam arcaha d “ fai le d t o m eet[hi s] burd enof p ro vi ng th atHug he s re cei ve d a nyth in g o f be ne fitin ex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y ,” an d t hu s de ni edth is cla im

with re sp ectto Hug he s. Th e co urt s im il arl y reject edth e cl ai m wit h re sp ectto Sm it h, co nc lu di ng th e cl ai m was b as edon “ sp ecu la ti on ” an d Lam arcaha d fa il edto sh ow t ha t an y pro m is es were m ad e to Sm it h, tha t the Sta te wit hh el d a ny evi de nc e o f a “ de al ,” an d t ha t the Sta te pe rm it te d fa ls e te st im on y by al lo win g S m it h t o t es ti fy

he rece iv edno be ne fit s i n e xc ha ng e fo r hi s t es ti m on y .

24The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edon ap pe al . In i ts di sc us si on of thi s cl ai m , th e co urt ex pl ai ne d t he co nt ro ll in g l aw un de r Bra dyan d Gig li o , bef or e an al y zi ng , ingre atde ta il , th e tr ia l co urt’s fi nd in gs an d t he ev id en ce p res en te d b y Lam arca . La mar ca II

, 93 1 S o. 2 d at85 1– 53 . Bas edup on it s re vi ew, th e co urt co nc lu de d “ th e rec or d d [id ] no t s up po rt Lam arca ’s cla im th atth e St at e supp res se d de al s m ad e wit h e it he r Hug he s o r Sm ith i n e xc ha ng e fo r th ei r te st im on y .” Id. at 85 2. Be cau se “ th e rec or d c on tra di ct [ed ] Lam arca ’s all eg at io ns ” an d t he tri al co urt’s d eci si on was “ supp orte d b y co m pe te nt , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce,” t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Lam arca ’s Bra dyan d Gig li o cla im s. Id. at 8 53 . Lam arcarai se d t he se Bra dyan d Gig li o cla im s b efo re the di st ric t co urt i n h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n. He as se rte d “ th e st at e p os se ss edfav or ab le in fo rm at io n . . . whi ch wou ldha ve im

pe ach edpro se cu ti on witne ss es Hug he s an d S m it h—th e o nl y wit ne ss es who tes ti fie d tha t M r. Lam arcaha d p la nn edan d c on fes se d t o k il li ng Kev inFlynn .” He als o m ai nt ai ne d “ th e p ro se cu ti onall owe d fa ls e st at em en ts to go un co rrec te d a s b ot h Hu gh es an d S m it h e ach tes ti fie d t ha t the y ha d n otrece iv ed an y de al .” The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Lam arcarel ie f on th es e g ro un ds , no ti ng th e st at e co urts fou ndth ere wer e n o u nd is cl os edde al s o r ag reem en ts with Hu gh es or Sm ith, an d Lam arcafai le d t o e st ab li sh , by cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce, the se factua l fi nd in gs were erro ne ou s. 25Ju ris ts of r eas on wou ldno t d eb at e th e d is tri ctco urt’s as se ss m en t o f

Lam arca ’s Bra dyan d Gig li o cla im s. Se e Sla ck , 52 9 U.S. at48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at 16 04 . The s ta te co urts art ic ul at edth e co rrec t l aw un de r Bra dyan d Gig li o an d t he n co ns id eredwhet he r th e St at e h adoff ereda be ne fitor r ewardto , or m ad e a d eal or ag reem en t wi th , eit he r Hug he s o r Sm it h. Acco rd in gl y , Lam arcaha s fa il edto sh ow th e st at e co urts ’ an al y se s wer e “ co nt rary to” or “ anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f” cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Furth erm or e, th e st at e co urts m ad e fac tu al fin di ng s t ha t the re were no de al s m ad e o r rewar ds off ered in ex ch an ge for

Hug he s’s o r Sm it h’s t es ti m on y , andLam arcaha s n otrefu te d t he se fin di ng s b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Se e id. § 2 25 4( e)(1 ). Thu s, Lam arca ha s n otde m on st rat edth e st at e co urts ’ de ci si on s wer e “ba se d o n an u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts .” Se e id. § 2 25 4( d) (2 ). W e co nc lu de Lam arcaha s n ot m ad e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng of t he de ni al of aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , se e id. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ), an d h e is no t en ti tl edto a COA on th is cla im . C. Clai m Thr ee: L ama rc a’ s Du e Pro ces s Ri

gh ts W er e Den ie d b

y th e Tr ia l Co ur t’s Limi ta ti on an d Exc lu si on of Eviden ce a nd

Abr id ge men t o f His Cr os s- Exa min at io n o

f To ny a Fl

yn n. Lam arcaass ert s t he tri al co urt d en ie d h im th e ri gh t t o d efen d a ga in stth e ch arg es by notall owi ng hi m to pre se ntev id en ce tha t To nya andKevi n F lynnwere ge tt in g adi vo rce, t ha t To nya arg ue d wi th Kevi n re ga rd in g h is ex ces si ve dri nk in g 26an d s ex ua l i na de qu acy, an d t ha t To nya haden ga ge d i n a n a ffai r du rin g abri ef

se pa rat io n fr om

Kevi n am on th an d aha lf p rio r to th e m ur de r. Lam arcaco nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t the ex cl us io n o f th is ev id en ce was ha rm le ss erro r is de ba tabl e am on g ju ris ts of r eas on . Furt he rm or e, Lam arcam ai nt ai ns th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt an d t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s wer e co nt rary to o r un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io ns of c le arl y est ab li sh edlaw, ci ti ng Ch ap man v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 1 8, 8 7 S . Ct. 8 24 (19 67 ). Und er b ot h F lo rid a an d fe de ral law, a t ria l co urt’s d eci si onto ex cl ud e ev id en ce attri al is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Sa la za r v. Sta te , 99 1 S o. 2 d 36 4, 3 73 (Fl a. 20 08 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Ti no co , 30 4 F .3d10 88 , 11 19 (11 thCir . 20 02 ). A tri al co urt’s d is cret io n re ga rd in g e vi de nt ia ry is su es , ho wev er, i s s ub

ject to th e requi rem en ts of t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. La nk fo rd , 95 5 F .2d15 45 , 15 48 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Am on g t he se requi rem en ts is a de fen da nt ’s rig htto pre se nta de fen se . Se e Ch amb er s v. Miss is si

pp i , 41 0 U.S. 2 84 , 29 4, 9 3 S . Ct. 1 03 8, 1 04 5 (1 97 3) (“ The rig htof a n a ccu se d i n acri m in al tri al to du e p ro ces s i s, i n e ss en ce, the rig htto a fai r op po rtu ni ty to d efen d a ga in stth e St at e’s acc us at io ns .”). Thu s, wh ena tr ia l co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s d ep riv e a de fen da ntof h is rig htto pre se nta de fen se , su ch rul in gs am ou ntto co ns ti tu ti on al erro r. Id. at 3 02 –0 3, 9 3 S . Ct. at10 49 . 27A con st itut io na l erro r, ho wev er, d oe s n otrequi re an au to m at ic rev ers al of a

de fen da nt ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e. Se e Ch ap man , 38 6 U.S. at21 –2 2, 8 7 S . Ct. at82 7. Ra th er, s om e co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs m ay be “ so un im

po rta ntan d in si gn ifi can t tha t the y

m ay , con si st en t wi th th e Fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on , be d eem ed ha rm le ss , no t re qu iri ng th e au to m at ic rev ers al of t he co nv ic ti on .” Se e id. at22 , 87 S. Ct . at 8 27 . Und er the ha rm le ss -err orst an da rdart ic ul at edin Ch ap man an d i ts pr og en y , a co nv ic ti onm ay be affi rm edon ly “ if t he rev ie win g c ou rt c on cl ud e[s ] th at , on th e who le reco rd , th e err orwas h arm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha st in g , 46 1 U.S. 4 99 , 50 8, 1 03 S. Ct. 1 97 4, 1 98 0 (1 98 3) . Put di ffer en tl y , th e rev ie win g c ou rt m us t co ns id er “ whe th er the re i s a r eas on ab le po ss ib il it y

th atth e ev id en ce co m

pl ai ne d o f m ig htha ve co nt rib ut edto th e co nv ic ti on .” Se e Ch ap man , 38 6 U.S. at24 , 87 S. Ct. at82 8 (q uo ti ng Fah y v. Co nn ect ic ut , 37 5 U.S. 8 5, 8 6, 8 4 S . Ct. 2 29 , 23 0 (1 96 3) ). Thi s s ta nd ardis m or e st rin ge ntth anth e h arm le ss -err orst an da rdus edin habe as pro ceed in gs , un de r whi cha co urt m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the erro r “ ha d s ub st an ti al an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf

lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Se e Bre ch t v. Ab ra ha mso n , 50 7 U.S. 6 19 , 62 2– 23 , 11 3 S . Ct. 1 71 0, 1 71 3– 14 (19 93 ) (rejec ti ng th e Ch ap man st an da rdin co ll at eral pro ceed in gs an d a do pt in g a“ le ss on ero us ” te st ).

28Lam arcafir starg ue d t he tri al co urt’s ru li ng li m it in g t he ev id en ce o f Ton y a

Fl ynn ’s m ari ta l p ro bl em s an d e xt ram ari ta l af fai r vi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts in hi s d ire ctap pe al of h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Lam arca ’s def

en se at t ria l was th atTon y a Fl ynn m ur de redhe r hu sb an d. Pri orto tri al , ho wev er, the tri al co urt g ran te d i n p artth e St at e’s Mo ti onin Lim in e to ex cl ud e al le ga ti on s t ha t the Flynn s wer e g et ti ng a di vo rce o r th atTon y a h adan ex tra m ari ta l af

fai r. In h is di rectap pe al , Lam arcaarg ue d the tri al co urt’s ex cl us io n of th is ev id en ce l im it edhi s ab il it y to est ab li sh Ton y a Fl ynn ha d am ot iv e to ki ll he r hu sb an d, t hu s v io la ti ng hi s due pro ces s ri gh ts to pre se ntev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s d efen se . Init s d eci si on affi rm in g Lam arca ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t he tri al co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e ev id en ce i n que st io n. La mar ca I , 78 5 S o. 2 d a t 1 21 3. Th e co urt, h owe ve r, fo un d th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n a m ou nt edto ha rm le ss erro r in li gh t o f th e ev id en ce supp orti ng Lam arca ’s gu il t, ci ti ng St at e v. DiGu il io , 49 1 S o. 2 d 1 12 9, 1 13 5 (F la . 19 86 ). La mar ca I

, 78 5 S o. 2 d a t 1 21 4. Lam arcaag ai n ra is edth is is su e in hi s § 2 25 4 p et it io n, an d t he di st ric t co urt ag reedwith t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s de te rm in at io n, co nc lu di ng Lam arcaha d fa il ed“ to de m on st rat e th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s h arm le ss erro r an al y si s was in co ns is te ntwith a ny deci si on fro m 29th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt o r was anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f an y su ch pr eced en t. The su ffi ci en cy of the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s h arm le ss erro r an al y si s is cle arl y est ab li sh edby a revi ew of th atCo urt’s o pi ni on .” No ju ris t o f rea so n wo ul d c on cl ud e th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co urt was

“ de ba tabl e o r wro ng .” Se e Sla ck , 52 9 U.S. at48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at16 04 ; 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Fir st , ondi rectrev ie w, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt u se d t he ha rm le ss -err orst an da rdfro m DiGu il io , whi ch , intu rn , rel ie s o n Ch ap man . Se e DiGu il io , 49 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 13 4– 35 (“ [W] e ad op te d t he co rrec t ru le fro m Ch ap man an d Has ti ng

th atco ns ti tu ti on al erro rs , with ra re ex cep ti on s, ar e subjec t t o h arm le ss erro r an al y si s. Th e h arm le ss erro r te st , as s etforth in Ch ap man an d p ro ge ny, pl aces th e b ur de n o n t he st at e, as th e b en efi ci ary of th e err or , to pro ve be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t tha t the erro r co m pl ai ne d o f di d n otco nt rib ut e to th e v erd ic t o r, al te rn at iv el y

st at ed , th atth ere i s n o re as on ab le po ss ib il it y th atth e err orco nt rib ut ed to th e co nv ic ti on .”). Seco nd , th e d is tri ctco urt arti cu la te d t he co rrec t h arm le ss erro r st an da rdforhabe as pro ceed in gs , cit in g t o Brec ht an d n ot in g “ co ns ti tu ti on al erro r wil l b e co ns id eredharm le ss in a habe as pro ceed in g u nl es s t he erro r ha d subs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce o n the ve rd ic t o r se nt en ce.” Fi na ll y , un de r ei th er the Ch ap man or Brec ht st an da rd , th e tr ia l co urt’s erro r was harm le ss in li gh t o f th e o th er ev id en ce s up po rti ng Lam arca ’s con vi ct io n. 30In de ed , evi de nc e ad du cedat t ria l es tabl is hi ng Lam arca ’s gu il t i nc lu de d h is

ag it at edst at e o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de r; Ti naLam arca ’s tes ti m on y th atLam arca ha d t ol d h er tha t Kev in Flynndi d n otwantLam arcaaro un d To nya Flynn o r hi s ch il d a nym or e; ey ewit ne ss acco un ts of Lam arcade parti ng th e b ar wi th Kevi n a nd in Kevi n’s ca r, an d Lam arcalat er re tu rn in g t o t he ba r al on e an d wi th Kevi n’s ca r; th e te st im on y

of S te ph an ie Park er, wh o s aw Lam arcaan d a no th er m an“ arg ui ng ab ou t s om ethi ng ” o ut si de Lam arca ’s tra il er tha t n ig ht ; the di sc ov ery of Kevi n’s bo dy in Lam arca ’s tra il er ea rly the ne xtm orni ng ; Lam arca ’s po ss es si on of t he .22 rif le us edto co m

m itth e m ur de r in th e d ay s p rio r; To nya Flynn’s t es ti m on y th at sh e sa w Lam arcawith the m ur de r weap on aft er h e rap edhe r; t he retrie va l o f th e m ur de r weap on fro m

Jo se ph Lam arca ’s ho m e; Lam arca ’s acce ss to anam m un it io n bo x wi th .22 rou nd s; th e d is co ve ry of akn ife th atLam arcaha d c arri edpri orto th e m ur de r ne ar Kev in ’s bo dy; Lam arca ’s st at em en t fi ve m on th s b efo re the m ur de r th athe want edto ki ll Kevi n; hi s s ta te m en t t o afri en d t he m orni ng aft er the m ur de r th athe ki ll edKevi n, t ha t i t “ su ck ed ,” bu t tha t h e h adto do it ; an d h is fli gh t fr om la w enf or cem en t, wh ic h e ve ntua ll y to okhi m to th e st at e o f W as hi ng to n. Acco rd in gl y , no reas on ab le juri stwou ldde ba te th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th at th e err ordi d n otha ve “ subs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g th e jury’ s v erd ic t.” Se e Brec ht , 50 7 U.S. at62 3, 1 13 S. Ct. at17 14 ; Slac k, 52 9 31U.S. at 4 84 , 12 0 S . Ct. at16 04 . Lam arcais no t en ti tl edto a COA with re sp ectto

th is cla im . IV. CONCLUSION Lam arcaha s fa il edto m ak e a “ subs ta nt ia l s ho win g o f th e d en ia l o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ). Acco rd in gl y , we den y hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA. DENIE D.

32