### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 1, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 02- 16059

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 98 -002 60 -C V -2-W L S -1 E D D I E L E E J E F F E R S O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O N A L D F O U N T A I N , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 1, 2004) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: T he S t at e of G eorgi a, throu gh W ar den R on al d F ou nt ai n, appeal s the di stri ct court ’ s gra ntof habeas corpus re l i ef un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 t o E dd i e L ee Jefferso n , a st at e p ri so n er co n v i ct ed o f rap e an d rel at ed cri m es i n T u rn er C o u n ty,2

G e o r g ia . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th a t r e lie f b a s e d o n J e f

f e r s o n ’s c la im th a t h is co u n sel i n th e st at e tri al w as i n effecti v e fo r fai l i n g t o fi l e a m o t i o n t o su p p ress e v id e n c e a r is in g o u t o f

a n a lle g e d ly ille g a l s to p a n d a rr e s t. T h e p r o c e d u r a l tw is ts a n d tu rn s o f

th is c a s e a n d th e le g a l is s u e s it b r in g s u s a r e u n u s u a l. J e f f e r s o n wa s c o n v i c t e d o f

c h a r g e s s t e m m i n g f

r o m th r e e r ap e s i n two G e or gi a c ount i e s . H e w a s f i r s tc onvi c t e d i n T urne rC ounty of tw o of the r ape s a nd r e la te d c h a r g e s , a n d th o s e c o n v ic tio n s w e r e u p h e ld th r o u g h th e s ta te c o u r t s y s te m . T h e n J e f f e r s o n w a s c o n v ic te d o f

th e th ir d r ap e a n d r e la te d c h a r g e s in I rw in C o u n ty . T hos e c onvi c t i ons f

r om tha tl a t e rtr i a l , unl i ke the c onvi c t i ons f r om the e a r l i e rone i n T urne rC ounty , w e r e s e ta s i de by the G e or gi a c our t s on gr ounds of i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of tri al coun se l . M ore s peci fi ca l l y, coun se l w as hel d t o h ave been i n e f f e c t i v e f o rf a i l i n g t o mo v e t o s u p p r e s s c ru c i a l e v i d e n c e r e s u l t i n g f r o m a v e h ic u la rs to p b y la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s . T h a t s to p g a v e r is e to e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e e v id e n c e a g a in s t J e f f e r s o n in b o th tr ia ls , a n d th a t e v id e n c e w a s a s im p o r ta n t to o n e s e t o f c o n v ic tio n s a s to th e o th e r . N on ethel es s, even aft erJe ff er son’ s c on vi ct i on s on the Irw i n C ou nty c harges had b ee n se t asid e, th e s tate h ab ea s c o u rt d en ied re li ef in re g ar d to Je ff

er so n ’s co n v i ct i o n s i n T u rn er C o u n ty. T h e d i stri ctco u rtco n cl u d ed th atth e st at e co u rt ’ s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g r e l i e f

w a s u n r e a s o n ab l e e n o u g h w i th i n th e me a n i n g o f 2 8 U . S. C.3

§ 2 2 5 4 ( d ) t o j u s t i f

y f e d e r a l h ab e a s r e l i e f

a n d g r a n t e d i t . I n o r d e rt o e x p l a i n wh y we d is a g r e e , w e b e g in w ith th e p a r tic u la r s o f th e f a c tu a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l h is to ry . I. A. B etw ee n D ec em ber 21, 19 89 , and A ug ust2, 19 90 , three rapes occ urre d in T urne ra nd I rw i n C ount i e s , G e or gi a : ( 1) the D e c e m be r21, 1989 r ape of S ha nnon T u c k e rin I rw in C o u n ty ; ( 2 ) th e D e c e m b e r2 9 , 1 9 8 9 r ap e o f C h r is tin a B a c o n in T urner C ou nty; and (3) the A ug ust2, 19 90 rape of C andace G re eri n T urner C o u n ty . J e f

f e r s o n w a s p r o s e c u te d in e a c h c o u n ty f o rth e r ap e s o c c u rr in g th e r e . T h e T u rn e rC o u n ty p r o s e c u tio n c a m e f ir s t. T he T urne rC ounty i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d J e f f e r s on w i th tw o c ount s of r ape (one of G re erand t he ot her of B ac on ), tw o cou nt s of burgl ary, on e c ou ntof arm ed robb ery, and o ne coun tof aggravat ed as saul t . T he st at e tri al courtappo i nt ed H erbertB enson t o repres entJe ff er son i n rel at i on t o tho se char ges. A l l three v ic tim s te s tif

ie d a t th e T u rn e rC o u n ty tr ia l, e v e n th o u g h th e c h a r g e s c o v e r e d o n ly th e tw o r ap e s th a t o c c u rr e d in th a t c o u n ty . C a nda c e G r e e rt e s t i f

i e d tha ta ta bout2 a . m . on A ugus t2, 1990, a m a n br oke i nt o h ertra i l eri n S yc am ore, w hi ch i s i n T urner C ou nty, G eorgi a. S he w as as l ee p on he rs of

a i n the l i vi ng r oom . H e rc hi l dr e n – da ught e r s a ge d 4 a nd 5

– w er e a sl ee p4

i n the be dr oom r i ghtne xtt o the l i vi ng r oom . M s . G r e e rw a s a w a ke ne d w he n the a s s a ila n t p u t h is h a n d o v e rh e re y e s , to ld h e rn o t to o p e n th e m , a n d p u t a k n if e to he rthr oa t . T he a s s a i l a ntt ook the pi l l ow c a s e of f the pi l l ow s he ha d be e n us i ng a nd b lin d f o ld e d h e rw ith it. H e th e n a s k e d w h e r e h e rw a lle t w a s , a n d s h e to ld h im it w as i n the ki t chen. H e w al ked h ert o the ki t chen and g other purse and t oo k m on ey ou tof i t . A ft erconfi rm i ng thatw as al l the ca sh she had, he sa i d “ thathe gu es se d he w a s goi ng t o ha ve t o r ape [ he r ] now t o ge t. . . s om e thi ng outof i t [ ; ] tha the coul dn ’ tcom e w i tho utgett i ng som ethi ng . ” T h e a s s a ila n t th e n to ld G r e e rto ta k e h e rc lo th e s o f f . S h e b eg g ed h i m t o j u st ta k e th e m o n e y a n d n o t to d o it, b u t h e to ld h e rth a t h e h a d to . H e m ove d he rt o the l i vi ng room and raped her on the c ou ch. T hen h e m ov ed her t o the fl oo r a nd raped h e ra g a in . H e he l d a kni f e t o he rthr oa tthe w hol e t i m e , a nd a l s o t ol d he rtha the w o u ld k ill h e ra n d h e rtw o d a u g h te r s if s h e d id n o t c o m p ly . S he never ac tual l y s aw th e a s s a ila n t, b u t s a id th a t s h e c o u ld te ll b y h is v o ic e h e w a s b la c k . C hri st i na B ac on t es t i fi ed thaton D ec em ber 29, 19 89 , she w as thi rt ee n yea rs ol d. S om e t i m e be tw e e n 5: 10 a nd 6: 13 a . m . on tha tda t e s he w a s a w a ke ne d by the s ound of s om e one goi ng thr ough he rthi ngs i n the ba thr oom of the hous e w he r e s he liv e d in S y c a m o r e , G e o r g ia . T he l i gh tw as on i n the bathroo m and t he do or w as a ja r . T h in k in g it w a s h e rm o th e ro rs is te rin th e b a th r o o m , s h e w e n t b a c k to s le e p .5

B a c o n a w o k e w h e n s o m e o n e ’s h a n d c o v e r e d h e rm o u th . S h e tr ie d to sc re am , bu ther a ss ai l anthi ther over the head tw i ce w i th som ethi ng thatappeare d to b e a c r o w b a ra n d to ld h e rth a t if s h e d id n ’t s h u t u p h e w o u ld h it h e ra g a in . At s om e poi nta f

t e rs a y i ng tha t , he hi the ra ga i n – s he w a s hi tw i th i ta t ot a l of f our tim e s d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e a tta c k , b u t s h e n e v e rlo s t c o n s c io u s n e s s . A ft er h ittin g h e r , th e a s s a ila n t to o k o f f h is c lo th e s a n d r ap e d h e r . A ts om e poi ntdur i ng th e r ap e , h e to ld h e rth a t “b e f o r e h e c o u ld le a v e f

ir s t h e h a d to c o m e ” a n d th e n it w o u ld b e o v e ra n d s h e c o u ld g e t a d o c to r . S he t ol d hi m s he ne e de d a doc t or . S he as ked i f he had a gun , and h e s ai d yes . S he as ked h i m t o sho other. H e r epl i ed “s h o o t y o u ? ” a n d la u g h e d . H e a s k e d “w h y w o u ld I w a n t to d o th a t? ” a n d s h e to ld hi m she w as i n so m uch p ai n she w ant ed hi m t o ei ther s ho other or gether ado ct or. A f t e rthe r ape , the a s s a i l a ntt ol d B a c on nott o m ove f ort e n m i nut e s , a nd put a p illo w o v e rh e rf

a c e . H e w as i n h erho m e at ot al of 25 t o 4 5 m i nu t es , and she had th e o p p o r tu n ity to o b s e r v e h is f a c e , f a c e - to - f a c e , f o ra b o u t th r e e to f

o u rm in u te s . S h e id e n tif

ie d J e f f e r s o n in c o u r t a s th e m a n w h o h a d a s s a u lte d h e r . S ha nnon T uc ke rl i ve d i n I rw i n C ounty . S he t e s t i f i e d tha ton D e c e m be r21, 19 89 , w hen she w as 15 ye ar s ol d, she w as babysi tt i ng her c ou si n, S ar ah M cC ra ni e, w ho w a s 7 or8 y e a r s ol d. A ta bout9: 30 or10 a . m . tha tda y a bl a c k m a n w hom s he di d notknow e nt e r e d the be dr oom w he r e s he w a s . H e w a s w e a r i ng unde rw e a ron6

h is h e a d . T uc ke ra nd M c C r a ni e be ga n s c r e a m i ng. T he m a n t ol d the m t o s hutup or h e w o u ld k ill b o th o f

th e m . T h e y b e c a m e q u ie t a n d b e g g e d h im n o t to h u r t th e m . T he m an ca m e over t o T ucker and pu thi s hand o ver her m ou th and dragged h eroff th e b e d . H e t ol d M c C r a ni e t o s t a y i n the be dr oom , a nd f or c e d T uc ke rdow n the h a ll, h o ld in g h e ra r o u n d th e n e c k u n d e rh is a r m . A roun d thi s t i m e the un derw ea r c a m e o f f h is h e a d . T ucker t ol d h i m he coul d t ake a nythi ng he w ant ed and asked th a t h e n o t h u r t h e ro rM c C r a n ie . T he m an dragged T ucker i nt o the ki t chen w here he grabbed a bu t cherkn i fe . W hi l e hol di ng the but c he rkni f e t o he rne c k, he t ol d T uc ke rnott o l ook a thi m or h e w o u ld k ill h e r . H e the n t ook T uc ke rt o the l i vi ng r oom a nd pl a c e d he rs t a ndi ng in f r o n t o f th e c o u c h . H e began un dres si ng her a nd agai n t ol d h erno tt o l oo k at h im o rh e w o u ld k ill h e r . T ucker w as cryi ng and t ry i ng t o g etaw ay . H e t oo k h er c l othe s of

f , he l d he rdow n, a nd r ape d he r . D ur i ng the a tt a c k T uc ke rha d the o p p o r tu n ity to lo o k a t h is f a c e f o r3 to 5 m in u te s o rs o . A t th e T u rn e rC o u n ty tr ia l, T u c k e rid e n tif

ie d J e f f e r s o n a s h e ra s s a ila n t. H er yo u n g co u si n , M cC ran i e, al so te s tif ie d th a t J e f

f e r s o n w a s th e m a n w h o b r o k e in to th e irh o u s e th a t m o rn in g . B. T he f a c t s i nvol vi ng the i nve s t i ga t i on of the G r e e rr ape i n the e a r l y m orni ng hour s of A ugus t2, 1990, a r e of

pa r t i c ul a ri m por t a nc e t o the l e ga l i s s ue s a r i s i ngTommy Wil liams, who lived in the are a, testified at trial that he had se en a tr uck 1 simil ar to Jeffer son’s in a ditch at 2:30 a.m. that morning , with a black ma n standingby

the tr uc k. Willi ams’ te stimony , when c omb ine d w ith that of theMa yos , p la c e s Jef

fers on a half mil e from t hesc e neof

thee arly mor ningra pejus t minute s a ft e r it to ok plac e . H ow e ver, thereis no thingin t

here c ord toindic atewh e ther a ny law enf orc e ment ag e ntskn e w a

bo ut what Will iams had seen before they

stopped J eff

erson at approxim ately

10:00 p.m., which was some 19 hour s after Will iams had spotted him standing be side his stuck truck. 7 f r o m th e s to p o f

J e f f e r s o n la te rth a t d a y , a n d th u s to th e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im a ga i ns thi s tr i a l c ouns e l f orf a i l i ng t o m ove t o s uppr e s s the f rui t s of the s t op. A l tho ug h u nsure of the t i m e, C andace G re er ’ s bes tes t i m at e i s thatshe w as r ap e d a r o u n d 2 :0 0 a .m . th a t m o rn in g . T h e s a m e d a y it h a d h ap p e n e d , G e o r g ia B ureau o f I nv es t i gat i on s A gentJ. B . R i ckenson, the chi ef i nv es t i gat or i n the ca se , ca nv as se d the nei gh bo rhoo d surroun di ng the G re erho use t o see i f a nyon e had h e a r d o rs e e n a n y th in g d u r in g th e n ig h t. H e l e a rn e d f r o m th e M a y o s th a ts o me t i me b etw een 5 : 1 5 an d 5 : 2 5 a. m . E d d i e Jefferso n , a b l ack m an , h ad co m e t o th ei r h o u se s e e k in g h e lp . H is tru c k w a s s tu c k in a d itc h b e s id e a c o rn f ie ld , ap p r o x im a te ly f o u r - te n th s o f

a m ile f r o m th e G r e e rh o u s e . T h e y h e lp e d h im g e t it o u t. 1 T hatsa m e day A gentR i ckenson exam i ned b oth the di t ch w here the truck had b ee n stuck, and G re er ’ s hou se and i t s s urroun di ng s. H e pho t og raph ed t i re tr a c k s a n d s h o e p r in ts a r o u n d th e d itc h a s w e ll a s s h o e p r in ts a r o u n d G r e e r ’s h o u s e . T h e r e c o r d is s ile n t ab o u t w h e th e ra n y c o m p a r a tiv e a n a ly s is o f th e s h o e p r in ts w as d o n e th a t d a y .The district cour t stated that the police of

ficers guns weredrawn. The state ha beas 2 court madeno such finding . Testimony at the Turner County

trial is ambiguous. We need not be conc erne d with this factual issue, however, be causelater in this opinion we will assume for purposes of de cidingthe ca se that the stop itself was a n arrest. 8 B as ed on the i nform at i on fr om the M ay os thatJe ff er son h ad been i n the ar ea of the r ape e a r l y tha tm orni ng a nd ha d gott e n hi s truc k s tuc k i n a di t c h, i nve s t i ga t or s w a nt e d ve ry m uc h t o que s t i on hi m . A r ound 10 p. m . the da y of the r ape , J e f f e r s on w a s dr i vi ng hi s truc k on a publ i c s tr e e tw i th hi s c hi l dr e n w he n he w a s p u lle d o v e rb y tw o p o lic e c a r s f la s h in g th e irb lu e lig h ts . A ft erJe ff er son p ul l ed o v e r , th e b lu e lig h ts w e r e tu rn e d o f f . Je ff er son g otou tof hi s c ar , and t hree offi ce rs ap p r o a c h e d h im w h ile o n e r e m a in e d in o n e o f th e p o lic e c a r s . T he offi ce rs i dent i fi ed them se l ves a nd spok e w i th Jef fe rs on for afe w m i nu t es . Iti s uncl ea r w hether w eapo ns w er e dra w n o r onl y s ho w i ng because s om e of the offi ce rs w er e i n u n i f o r m. O n e o f

th e o f f i c e r s a s k e d J e f

f e r s o n i f h e w o u l d b e w i l l i n g t o c o me 2 do w n t o the sher i ff’ s off i ce t o d i sc uss a n i nv es t i gat i on thatw as un derw ay i n T urner C ou nty. Je ff

er son repl i ed very po si t i vel y, sa yi ng “ S ure. ” Wi th J e f f e r s o n ’ s c o n s e n t , a d e p u ty d r o v e J e f f e r s o n ’ s v e h i c l e a n d h i s two c h ild r e n to J e f

f e r s o n ’s m o th e r ’s h o u s e , w h ic h w a s n e a rb y . J e f f e r s o n w a s d r iv e n to the sher i ff’ s off

i ce i n the sher i ff’ s patrol vehi cl e – a m arked v ehi cl e – w i th three o f f ic e r s p r e s e n t. J e f

f e r s o n s a t in th e b a c k w ith th e s h e r if f . T he i nsi de do or hand l es9

w er e i n p l ac e i n the backsea tand t here w as no ca ge. A n o cc up antof the back sea t c o u ld h a v e g o tte n o u t. A ge nt Ja ck W hi t e t es t i fi ed thatJe ff er son w as no tpl ac ed unde ra rr e s ta ttha tt i m e , a nd tha tnothi ng w a s done t o l i m i thi s a bi l i ty t o c om e or g o . J e f

f e r s on t e s t i f

i e d i n the s t a t e c our thabe a s he a r i ng tha ta tthe t i m e he w e nt w ith th e o f

f ic e r s h e d id n ’t f

e e l h e h a d a n y c h o ic e . H i s t es t i m on y, ho w ever , w as i m peac hed b y thatof hi s tri al coun se l , H erbertB enson. In expl ai ni ng w hy he had n o t m o v ed to su p p re ss th e e v id en ce re su lt in g fr o m th e s to p , B en so n testified : “ I t al ked t o [Je ff

er son] atl engt h abo utw hether or nothe w as evercoer ce d, w hether or no tthey f

orce d h i m t o g o, or w hether he w entfr ee l y or vol un t ar i l y. A nd every t i m e I t a l ke d abouttha t , hi s s t a t e m e nt s w e r e , y ou know , he w e ntf r e e l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y w i th the offi ce rs . ” T he s t a t e habe a s c our tc r e di t e d the t e s t i m ony of a tt orne y B e ns on a nd A ge nt W hi t e ove rtha tof

J e f f e r s on. I tf

ound truthf

ul B e ns on’ s habe a s he a r i ng t e s t i m ony tha tJ e f f e r s on ha d t ol d hi m r e pe a t e dl y tha the ha d gone w i th the of f i c e r s f r e e l y a nd v o l u n t a r i l y , a n d W h i t e ’ s tr i a l t e s t i mo n y th a tJ e f f e r s o n w a s f

r e e t o g o a ta n y t i me pri or t o h i s a ctual arre st . T hatarre st , R i ckenson exp l ai ned, di d n otoccur unt i l af t er G r e e rid e n tif

ie d J e f f e r s o n b y h is v o ic e . T he di s tr i c tc our t , i n s ha rp c ontr a s t , f ound tha tJ e f f e r s on “ di d notw i l l i ngl y a c c om pa ny pol i c e a f t e rthe tr a f

f i c s t op, he w e nt10

w i th p ol i ce because he w as i n fac tun der a rr es t . ” W e n e e d n o t r e s o lv e th is c o n f lic t, because i tul t i m at el y does notm att ert o o ur di sposi t i on of the ca se . S ee n. 2, abov e. U pon a rr i va l a tthe s he r i f f’ s of f i c e , J e f f e r s on w a s t a ke n i nt o a r oom t o be i nt e r vi e w e d by A ge ntR i c ke ns on. T he r e a s on J e f f e r s on w a s notr e a d hi s M i r a nda w arni ng s, ac cordi ng t o R i ckenson, i s thatthe qu es t i on i ng w as m er el y e xp l orat ory in n a tu r e a n d th e o f

f ic e r s h a d n o in f

o r m a tio n th a t w o u ld h a v e e n ab le d th e m to d e ta in J e f

f e r s o n if h e h a d s o u g h t to le a v e th e o f f ic e . R ic k e n s o n e x p lic itly to ld J e f f e r s o n th a t h e w a s n o t in c u s to d y . A tsom e poi ntdu ri ng A gentR i ckenson’ s i nt ervi ew of Je ff er son, C andace G r e e rw a s br oughtt o the s he r i f f’ s of f i c e t o l i s t e n t o J e f

f e r s on’ s voi c e . U pon he a r i ng hi s voi c e , G r e e ri m m e di a t e l y be ga n s obbi ng, ge s tur i ng, a nd s ha ki ng, a nd id e n tif ie d J e f f e r s o n a s th e m a n w h o h a d r ap e d h e r . W hen R i ckenson w as t ol d that G r e e rha d i de nt i f

i e d J e f f e r s on’ s voi c e a s tha tof

he ra s s a i l a nt , he a rr e s t e d J e f f e r s on a nd r e a d hi m hi s r i ght s . J e f f e r s on’ s c l othe s a nd s hoe s w e r e t a ke n a s e vi de nc e , a nd he w as ph ot og raph ed. H i s pho t og raph beca m e par tof an arra y, fr om w hi ch C hri st i na B ac on , S hann on T ucker, and S ar ah M cC ra ni e l at eri dent i fi ed Je ff er son as th e a s s a ila n t in th e o th e rtw o r ap e s . A f e w da y s a f

t e rthe a rr e s t , s e a r c h w a rr a nt s w e r e i s s ue d f ors a m pl e s of J e f f e r s o n ’s h a ira n d b lo o d . T he c r i m e l ab l a t e rr e por t e d tha tthe s hoe s he ha d on11

w h e n a rr e s te d w e r e s im ila rto th o s e th a t h a d le f t p r in ts o u ts id e G r e e r ’s r e s id e n c e . Je ff er so n ’s h airs w er e f

o u n d to b e c o n sisten t w ith tw o h airs re co v er ed fr o m G re er ’s r e s id e n c e . C. D uri ng Je ff

er son’ s T urner C ou nty tri al on char ges r es ul t i ng fr om the G re er a nd B a c on r ape s , a J a c ks on v. D e nno, 378 U . S . 368, 84 S . C t . 1774 ( 1964) , he a r i ng w a s he l d t o de t e r m i ne the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of s t a t e m e nt s J e f

f e r s on ha d m a de a tthe s he r i f f’ s of f i c e pr i ort o hi s f

or m a l a rr e s ta nd be f

or e he ha d be e n M i r a ndi z e d. T he i s s u e , a s th e tr i a l c o u r tp h r a s e d i t , w a s w h e th e rJ e f f e r s o n w a s i n c u s t o d y a tth e t i me the st at em ent s w er e m ade. T hi s i s how the tri al courtdeci ded t hati ss ue: T he r e i s no que s t i on i n the c our t ’ s m i nd buttha the w a s i n c us t ody f r om the t i m e thathe w as st op ped w i th the bl ue l i gh t s. A nd I thi nk the l aw backs that u p w h o le h e a r te d ly . N o w , th e n e x t p a r t th o u g h , I d o n ’t s e e a n y th in g in h is s ta te m e n t th a t w a s in c u lp a to ry a n d I d o n ’t s e e a n y th in g – I d o n ’t th in k th a t it i s –a nd he w a s notthe t a r ge tof the i nve s t i ga t i on a s I unde r s t a nd i tunt i l the pr obabl e c a us e a r os e f

r om the r e a c t i on of

the vi c t i m . S o I don’ tthi nk M ir a n d a ap p lie s . I th in k it w a s a n in - c u s to d y in te rr o g a tio n . G eorgi a v. Je ff

er son, N o. 74 10 , T ra nscr i pt32 1-22 (S up er i or C ou rtof T urner C o u n ty 1 9 9 1 ) . W i th thatexpl anat i on , the tri al courtrul ed thatJe ff er son’ s s t at em ent s w er e a dm i s s i bl e . T he c our tw e nton t o s a y , how e ve r , tha t“ i f he goe s a ny f

ur the ra nd doe s m a ke a ny thi ng i n r e m a r ks f ori nc ul pa t ory [ s i c ] , the c our ti s on the m ot i on of12

thi s de f e nda ntI ’ l l j us tt e l l y ou, I ’ l l ha ve t o gr a nta m i s tr i a l . I thi nk y ou’ d be w as t i ng m on ey no tt o. ” I d. a t324. N o i nc ul pa t ory s t a t e m e nt s w e r e e ve rof f e r e d, bu tJe ff er son argues thatby sa yi ng thati tw ou l d sup pres s a ny thatw er e, the court

“ pr a c t i c a l l y i nvi t e d” tr i a l c ouns e l t o m ove t o s uppr e s s the non- s t a t e m e ntf rui t s of the s t op. C ouns e l di d notdo s o. Atth e c o n c l u s i o n o f

th e T u rn e rC o u n ty tr i a l , J e f f e r s o n wa s c o n v i c t e d o f

two c o u n t s o f r ap e , two c o u n t s o f

b u r g l a ry , a n d o n e c o u n to f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . He w a s s e n te n c e d to c o n s e c u tiv e lif e s e n te n c e s p lu s 2 0 y e a r s . J e f f e r s o n , s till r e p r e s e n t e d b y B e n s o n , f i l e d a d i r e c tap p e a l t o th e Ge o r g i a C o u r to f Ap p e a l s . He r a is e d e ig h t is s u e s , n o n e o f w h ic h in v o lv e d s u p p r e s s io n o f e v id e n c e . T h e G e o r g ia C o u r t o f A p p e a ls a f

f ir m e d th e T u rn e rC o u n ty c o n v ic tio n s . J e f f e r s on v. S t a t e , 425 S . E . 2d 91 5 (G a. C t . A pp . 19 92 ) ( Je ff er son I). D. A f te rh is u n s u c c e s s f

u l ap p e a l in th e T u rn e rC o u n ty c a s e , J e f f e r s o n , a g a in r e pr e s e nt e d by B e ns on, w a s tr i e d a nd c onvi c t e d i n I rw i n C ounty f orthe r ape of S ha nnon T uc ke r , f

orbur gl a ry , a nd f

orpos s e s s i on of

a kni f e dur i ng c om m i s s i on of a f e lo n y . T ha ttr i a l ut i l i z e d m uc h of the s a m e e vi de nc e a r i s i ng f r om the s t op of J e f f e r s o n o n A u g u s t 2 , 1 9 9 0 , a s h a d th e T u rn e rC o u n ty tr ia l. F o llo w in g h is I rw in C o u n ty c o n v ic tio n s , J e f f e r s o n o b ta in e d n e w c o u n s e l a n d d ir e c tly ap p e a le d . T h is13

t i m e he r ai se d a cl ai m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance concerni ng the fa i l ure of tri al c o u n s e l to m o v e to s u p p r e s s th e e v id e n c e f lo w in g f r o m th e A u g u s t 2 , 1 9 9 0 s to p . O n th e b a s is o f

th a t c la im , th e G e o r g ia C o u r t o f A p p e a ls r e v e r s e d th e I rw in C o u n ty c o n v ic tio n s . J e f

f e r s o n v . S ta te , 4 5 9 S .E .2 d 1 7 3 ( G a . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( J e f f e r s o n I I ) . T h e G e o r g ia ap p e lla te c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t J e f f e r s o n h a d b e e n ille g a lly se i ze d b ef

ore he consent ed t o acc om pany the po l i ce t o the sher i ff’ s off i ce , and t hat the i nt e r vi e w a nd e vi de nc e a c qui r e d a s a r e s ul tof tha ts e i z ur e w e r e t a i nt e d by the “p a te n tly ille g a l” a rr e s t. I d . a t 1 7 4 - 7 8 . T he courtthen reas on ed thattri al coun se l B enson h ad erre d b y f

ai l i ng t o m ov e t o sup pres s thatt ai nt ed evi dence, w hi ch in c lu d e d G r e e r ’s v o ic e id e n tif ic a tio n , J e f

f e r s o n ’s h a ir , h is s h o e s , a n d h is phot ogr aph w hi c h ha d l e d t o the vi s ua l i de nt i f i c a t i ons by B a c on, T uc ke ra nd M c C r a n ie . B ec ause of the w ei gh tof the t ai nt ed evi dence, the appel l at e c ou rtconcl ud ed th a t, b u t f

o rB e n s o n ’s e rr o r , th e r e s u lt m ig h t h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. A c c o r d in g ly , it h e ld th a t J e f

f e r s o n h a d b e e n d e p r iv e d o f th e e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l, r e ve r s e d hi s c onvi c t i on, a nd r e m a nde d f ora ne w tr i a l . I d. a t178. I n doi ng s o, the appel l at e c ou rtno t ed that“ the i ss ues pre se nt ed i n thi s c as e w ou l d h ave app l i ed w ith e q u a l f

o r c e h a d th e y b e e n p r e s e n te d f o rr e v ie w in J e f

f e r s o n I .” I d . a t 1 7 5 n .2 .14

O n r e m a nd, J e f

f e r s on w a s r e tr i e d on the I rw i n C ounty c ha r ge s w i thoutthe e v id e n c e r e s u ltin g f

r o m th e s to p , a n d h e w a s a c q u itte d . A ft erthatturn o f e vent s, Je ff er son w as l ef

ti n p ri son servi ng hi s s ent ence s on the T urner C ou nty c on vi ct i on s. U nh appy abou tthat , he fi l ed a pro se habeas pe t i t i on i n s t a t e c our tc ha l l e ngi ng hi s T urne rC ounty c onvi c t i ons on a num be rof gr ounds , one of

w hi c h w a s hi s tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o m ove t o s uppr e s s the e v id e n c e a r is in g f

r o m th e A u g u s t 2 , 1 9 9 0 s to p . T he st at e habeas courthel d an e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g d u r in g w h ic h J e f f e r s o n w a s r e p r e s e n te d b y n e w c o u n s e l. At tha the a r i ng, the c our the a r d t e s t i m ony f r om J e f f e r s on a nd B e ns on. T he st at e habeas courtw as i n an u nu sual po si t i on w hen i tdeci ded w hether B e ns on’ s f

a i l ur e t o m ove t o s uppr e s s the f rui t s of J e f f e r s on’ s a l l e ge dl y i l l e ga l s t op a nd a rr e s ti n the T urne rC ounty tr i a l c ons t i tut e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e . W he n the c o u r t h a d th a t is s u e b e f

o r e it, th e G e o r g ia C o u r t o f A p p e a ls in th e I rw in C o u n ty c a s e , J e f f e r s o n I I , h a d a lr e a d y f

o u n d B e n s o n in e f

f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to m o v e to supp re ss the frui t s of the very sa m e s t op , w hi ch the appel l at e c ou rthad c h a r a c te r iz e d a s “p a te n tly ille g a l.” 4 5 9 S .E .2 d a t 1 7 7 . N o n e th e le s s , th e s ta te ha be a s tr i a l c our tc onc l ude d tha tJ e f f e r s on ha d f

a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y e i the rthe perf orm ance or the prej ud i ce pron g n ec es sa ry t o d em on stra t e i neff ec t i ve as si st ance o f c o u n s e l u n d e rS tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) .15

T h e s tate h ab ea s c o u rt d id n o t fee l co n stra in ed b y th e a p p ellate co u rt’s deci si on i n Jef

fe rs on II . A l tho ug h i tac kn ow l edged t hatm uch o f the evi dence s uppr e s s e d a tthe I rw i n C ounty r e tr i a l w a s us e d i n the T urne rC ounty tr i a l , the c our ts t a t e d tha tunde rS tr i c kl a nd i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m s m us tbe de c i de d on a c a s e b y c a s e b a s is . T he c our tc onc l ude d tha tde s pi t e the s i m i l a r i t i e s be tw e e n the I rw i n C ounty a nd T urne rC ounty tr i a l s , J e f f e r s on I I di d notc ontr ol i t s de c i s i on be c a us e i tw a s a di f

f e r e ntc a s e w i th di f

f e r e ntvi c t i m s , j ur i e s , w i tne s s e s , a nd e v id e n c e . Itfa i l ed t o exp l ai n h ow the evi dence di ff er ed i n any m at er i al w ay b etw een th e tw o tri al s. A s f orthe pe r f

or m a nc e pr ong, the s t a t e ha be a s c our tc orr e c t l y s e toutthe S tr ic k la n d s ta n d a r d . I tpoi nt e d outtha ti n J e f f e r s on I I the G e or gi a C our tof A ppe a l s ’ c onc l us i on tha tB e ns on’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s de f

i c i e ntw a s ba s e d i n pa r ton tw o d ec i si on s, V ansa ntv. S t at e, 44 3 S . E . 2d 47 4 (G a. 19 94 ), and B urnh am v. S t at e, 453 S . E . 2d 449 ( G a . 1995) , tha tha d c om e outa f t e rB e ns on’ s pe r f

or m a nc e a tthe T urner C ou nty tri al . D ec l i ni ng t o rel y on tho se tw o d ec i si on s, because they w er e una va i l a bl e t o B e ns on a tthe t i m e of the tr i a l , the s t a t e habe a s c our tc onc l ude d: C ons i de r i ng a l l of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s a tthe t i m e of tr i a l , i nc l udi ng the p reced en tu p o n w h i ch tri al co u n sel rel i ed , th i s co u rtfi n d s th atco u n sel ’ s d e c is io n to f

o r e g o f ilin g a m o tio n to s u p p r e s s b a s e d o n a n ille g a l a rr e s t d id no tfa l l bel ow an obj ec t i ve st andard of rea sonabl e[ ness ] . T hu s, thi s C ou rt fi n d s th at[Jefferso n ] h as fai l ed t o d em o n strat e th e fi rstp ro n g o f th e t estTo establish that counsel’ s perf ormanc e wa s constitutionally ineffe ctive, a de fenda

nt 3 must show both that (1) counsel’s perfor mancewas so def

icient that it fell “be low an objec tive sta ndard of re a so na blene ss” ; and

(2 ) t hede fendant s uf

fere d “ a c tual pre

judic e ,”in “that th e reis a rea sonable proba

bility that, but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the procee ding would have be en different.”Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. 16 e nunc i a t e d i n S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on f ore s t abl i s hi ng a c l a i m of in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. Je ff er son v . H i cks, N o. 97 V -014 1, at12 -13 (S up er i or C t . of W ar e C ou nty 199 7). A s a n al t ernat i ve basi s f or i t s deni al of re l i ef

, the st at e habeas courthel d that J e f f e r s on a l s o ha d f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h the S tr i c kl a nd pr e j udi c e pr ong. I n the

3 begi nn i ng of thatpartof i t s di sc ussi on , the courtm i ss t at ed the re qu i re m entas pu tt i ng the bu rden on the pet i t i on ert o p rove thatthe ou t com e of hi s tri al w as “a c tu a lly p r e

ju d ic e d ” b y c o u n s e l’s e rr o r s . L at eri n i t s di sc ussi on , the court c o rr e c tly r e f

e rr e d to a n d q u o te d th e “r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility ” o f a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt s ta n d a r d f

r o m S tr ic k la n d . A p p ly in g th e c o rr e c t s ta n d a r d , th e s ta te h ab e a s c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t, e v e n in the a bs e nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tw oul d ha ve be e n s uppr e s s e d, the w e i ghtof the n o n - ta in te d e v id e n c e a t tr ia l w a s s u c h th a t J e f f e r s o n c o u ld n o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t a r e a s ona bl e pr obabi l i ty the r e s ul ta ttr i a l w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nta bs e ntthe a l l e ge d e rr or . I n r e a c hi ng tha tc onc l us i on, the c our tc ount e d a s “ non- t a i nt e d” the fol l ow i ng evi dence: C hri st i na B ac on ’ s i n cou rti dent i fi ca t i on of Je ff er son as her a s s a i l a nt ; C a nda c e G r e e r ’ s t e s t i m ony a s t o the m odus ope r a ndi of he ra tt a c ke r , a ndTh ec ourt alsomay havehad in

min d th ejur

y ’sc omp ari so n o f t

he sede sc ripti on s w ith 4 J eff erson’ s actual voice, bec ause hedid testify at the Turner County

trial. 17 i t s s i m i l ar i ty t o thatdesc ri bed i n B ac on ’ s t es t i m on y; G re er ’ s des cr i pt i on of her a tta c k e r ’s v o ic e a s “g ru f f y . . . r e a l d e f

in ite . . . r e a l d is tin c tiv e ,” a n d its s im ila r ity t o B ac on ’ s des cr i pt i on of her a ss ai l ant ’ s voi ce as “ ki nd of hu sky–I m ea n, no tre al hu sky butdi st i nct i ve; ” the evi dence of J ef fe rs on ’ s a dv enture i n the cornfi el d d i t ch 4 the m orni ng of

the G r e e rr ape ; T uc ke r ’ s t e s t i m ony de s c r i bi ng he rs i m i l a ra tt a c k–a ho m e i nv as i on w i th a w eapo n fol l ow ed by rape–i n Irw i n C ou nty e i gh tdays before B ac on w as att ac ked; and T ucker’ s a nd M cC ra ni e’ s i dent i fi ca t i on s of J ef fe rs on at tri al . G i ven t he avai l abi l i ty of a l l thatno n-t ai nt ed evi dence, the courtbel i eved that J e f f e r s o n h a d f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to f

ile a m o tio n to supp re ss had p re

j ud i ce d h i m , as re qu i re d b y S tri ckl and’ s s ec on d p rong , “ such that he w as depri ved o f afa i r tri al or thatthe re sul tof hi s tri al i s notre l i abl e. ” J e f f e r s on ne xtpe t i t i one d the G e or gi a S upr e m e C our tf ora c e r t i f

i c a t e of pr oba bl e c a us e t o appe a l f r om the de ni a l of

hi s s t a t e ha be a s pe t i t i on. T ha tpe t i t i on w a s d e n ie d w ith o u t e x p la n a tio n . E . F o llo w in g th e d e n ia l o f r e lie f f r o m h is T u rn e rC o u n ty c o n v ic tio n s in h is st at e habeas proceedi ng , Je ff er son fi l ed a pet i t i on i n federa l di stri ctcourtfor r el i ef f r om the m pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the pe t i t i on,18

ef fe ct i vel y s ett i ng as i de Je ff er son’ s c on vi ct i on s, af

t erm ea suri ng the st at e c ou rt deci si on agai nstthe st andards of § 22 54 (d)( 1) and con cl ud i ng thatthe deci si on w as bo th con tra ry t o and an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of the cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw g o v ern i n g b o th th e p erfo rm an ce an d p rej u d i ce p ro n g s o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s S tr ic k la n d d e c is io n . A s t o the performance pron g, the di stri ctcourttho ug htthe st at e habeas court ha d f a i l e d t o r e c ogni z e tha tT e rry v. O hi o, 392 U . S . 1, 88 S . C t . 1868 ( 1968) , a nd D una w a y v. N e w Y or k, 442 U . S . 200, 99 S . C t . 2248 ( 1979) , gove rne d w he the rthe e vi de nc e f

l ow i ng f r om J e f f e r s on’ s a rr e s ts houl d ha ve be e n s uppr e s s e d on gr ounds thatthe st op vi ol at ed the F ou rth A m endm ent . T ho se tw o d ec i si on s, the court th o u g h t, w e r e “c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f e d e r a l la w ” th a t a d e te n tio n w ith o u t p r o b ab le cause und erthe ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e i s uncon st i tut i on al . In re ac hi ng that co n clu sio n th e d istrict co u rt fo u n d as fa ct, co n trar y to th e s tate h ab ea s c o u rt’s f i ndi ngs , tha tJ e f

f e r s on di d notw i l l i ngl y a c c om pa ny pol i c e a f t e rthe tr a f

f i c s t op, b u t in s te a d w a s u n d e ra rr e s t. G i ven t he i l l egal i ty of J ef fe rs on ’ s det ent i on , the court r e a s one d tha tunde rS tr i c kl a nd i tw a s unr e a s ona bl e f ortr i a l c ouns e l nott o ha ve f ile d a s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o c onc l ude d tha tthe s t a t e ha be a s c our t ’ s a na l y s i s of the pr e j udi c e pr ong w a s c ontr a ry t o a nd a n unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of the S tr i c kl a ndOur a pproach to the caseis based upon the understandingthat if a state ha beas c ourt 5 denies re lief where w e would havedone so if wewere conduc ting denovo review, fe deral 19 deci si on . T he di stri ctcourttho ug htthe st at e habeas courthad app l i ed a s t andard thatre qu i re d Jef

fe rs on t o p rove the re sul tof hi s tri al ac tual l y w ou l d h ave been d if f e r e n t in s te a d o f

d e m o n s tr a tin g a r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility o f a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt. T he hi gh erst andard w ou l d h ave been contra ry t o the cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l la w s e t o u t in S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 8 . T he st at e habeas c our t ’ s r a t i ona l e tha tthe r e w a s s uf f i c i e ntnon- t a i nt e d e vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe c onvi c t i ons w a s a l s o a n unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of the S tr i c kl a nd pr e

j udi c e pr ong, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t b e lie v e d . A c c or di ng t o i t , the que s t i on the s t a t e c our ts houl d ha ve a ns w e r e d butdi d noti s w he the rthe r e w a s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha ta dm i s s i on of the t ai nt ed evi dence had aff ec t ed the ou t com e of the tri al . B es i des, the di stri ct c our ts a i d, m uc h of

the “ non- t a i nt e d” e vi de nc e the s t a t e habe a s c our tr e l i e d upon for i t s r es ul tprob abl y w as subj ec tt o sup pres si on as frui tof the i ni t i al i l l egal vo i ce i de nt i f i c a t i on of

J e f f e r s on by G r e e r . B e c a us e tha tvoi c e i de nt i f i c a t i on w oul d ha ve be e n s uppr e s s e d upon a pr ope rm ot i on, the r e a s oni ng goe s , s o w oul d m os tof the o th e re v id e n c e a g a in s t J e f f e r s o n . II. U nde rourvi e w of

thi s c a s e , the r e a r e a num be rof i s s ue s w e ne e d not d e c id e . W e n e e d n o t d e c id e if th e s to p o f

J e f f e r s o n b y th e o f

f ic e r s w ith th e ir 5habea s relief is due to be denie d reg ardle ss of the re asoningthe state c ourt used to re ach that result. This is the way

things were be forethe enactment of AED PA, duringthe B rown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S. C t. 397 (1953), de novo review reg ime. The AED PA, of course , substantially

limit ed the c ircumstance s in which federal ha beas relief c an be grante d. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039-40 (2003) (“ Statutes such as AEDPA have place d more, ra

ther than f

ewer, re strictions on the power of federal c ourts to grant writs of habea s corpus to state prisoners.”) ; Gonzalez v. S ec’ y for Dept. of Corr., 366 F .3d 1253, 1269 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Thecentral purpose behind the AEDPA wa s to ensure greater finality of state a nd federal c ourt judgments in criminal case s.”); Johnson v. Unit ed States, 340 F.3d 1219, 1224 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (“It is generally acc epted that oneof the princ ipal functions of AEDPA wa s to ensure a

greater de greeof finality for c onvictions.”). It nece ssarily follows that where wewould deny

relief under a de novo review standa

rd, re lief must also be denie d under themuch n arrow e r AED PA re view s tandard s. Se eCrawf ord v . H e a d, 31 1 F .3 d 1 28 8, 13 24 (1 1th Cir. 2002). 20 fl as hi ng bl ue l i gh t s, w hi ch l ed t o h i s goi ng t o the sher i ff’ s off i ce , w as an i l l egal det ent i on . W e w i l l as sum e i tw as . W e nee d n otdeci de i f the fa i l ure of tri al c ouns e l t o f

i l e a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s the e vi de nc e tha tr e s ul t e d f r om J e f f e r s on goi ng to th e s h e r if

f’s o f f ic e w a s d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e u n d e rth e S tr ic k la n d s ta n d a r d . W e w i l l as sum e i tw as . W e nee d n otdeci de i f m uch o f the evi dence the st at e habeas courtdesc ri bed as non -t ai nt ed by any i l l egal i ty of the st op w as i n fac tt ai nt ed, as th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th o u g h t. W e w ill a s s u m e it w a s . M aki ng al l of these as sum pt i on s i n favor of Jef fe rs on ’ s posi t i on , he st i l l w as note nt i t l e d t o ha ve a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s the e vi de nc e r e s ul t i ng f r om the s t op a nd ensui ng i nt ervi ew grant ed; he w as no t , because of the i nevi t abl e di sc ov ery e x c e p t i o n t o th e e x c l u s i o n a ry ru l e . Th a te x c e p t i o n w a s a d o p t e d b y th e Su p r e me C o u r t in N ix v . W illia m s , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 3 1 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 5 0 1 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , a n d u n d e rit e v id e n c e th a t r e s u lts f

r o m a n ille g a l s e a r c h o rs e iz u r e is n o n e th e le s s a d m is s ib le if21

“ the i nf or m a t i on ul t i m a t e l y ori ne vi t abl y w oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d by l a w f ul m ea ns. ” I d. at44 4, 10 4 S . C t . at25 09 . In N i x, for e xam pl e, the C ou rthel d that evi dence of the l ocat i on and con di t i on of the decea se d v i ct i m ’ s bod y w as a dm i s s i bl e , e ve n though i t s di s c ove ry r e s ul t e d f r om a n i l l e ga l i nt e rr oga t i on of the de f e nda nt , be c a us e e xt e ns i ve s e a r c he s w e r e unde rw a y i n the a r e a a tthe t i m e a nd the body i ne vi t abl y w oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d i n s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rc ondi t i on e ve n w i thoutthe i nt e rr oga t i on of the de f e nda nt . I d. a t449- 50, 104 S . C t . a t2512. T he S upr e m e C our ti n N i x ba s e d the i ne vi t abl e di s c ove ry e xc e pt i on on the po l i ci es un derl yi ng the excl usi on ary rul e. A s the C ou rtexpl ai ned, the “ core ra t i on al e” of the excl usi on ary rul e i s t o d et erpo l i ce m i sc on du ctby ensuri ng that the pr os e c ut i on i s notputi n a be tt e rpos i t i on tha n i tw oul d ha ve be e n i n i f no i l l egal i ty had tra nspi re d. Id. at44 2-43 , 10 4 S . C t . at25 08 -09. A tthe sa m e t i m e, the hi gh soci al costof al l ow i ng ob vi ou sl y gui l ty per sons t o g o u np un i shed c ouns e l s a ga i ns tputt i ng the pr os e c ut i on i n a w or s e pos i t i on tha n i tw oul d ha ve been i n i f the const i tut i on al vi ol at i on had n otoccurre d. Id. at44 3, 10 4 S . C t . at 2 5 0 8 . W h e n th e e v id e n c e in e v itab ly w o u ld h a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e d , th e “p u b lic i nt e r e s ti n ha vi ng j ur i e s r e c e i ve a l l pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e of a c r i m e ” outw e i ghs the need t o d i sc ou ra ge po l i ce m i sc on du ct . Id. at44 3-44 , 10 4 S . C t . at25 08 -09. T here i s n o ad d i t i o n al d et erren ce v al u e i n su p p ressi n g th e ev i d en ce i n th eseDec isions of the Fifth Circuit rendere d on or bef ore September 30, 1981, a re binding 6 prec edent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) . 22 c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I d . a t 4 4 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 5 0 9 . T h e e x c lu s io n o f e v id e n c e w o u ld notr e s t or e the pa r t i e s t o the i rpr e vi ous pos i t i ons a nd w oul d ups e tthe c a r e f ul w e i ghi ng of

c om pe t i ng i nt e r e s t s unde r l y i ng the e xc l us i ona ry rul e . I d. E ven b ef ore the N i x d ec i si on , the el em ent s of the i nevi t abl e di sc ov ery rul e w e r e s e tf

or th i n a f

or m e rF i f

th C i r c ui tc a s e , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ooki ns , 614 F . 2d 1 0 3 7 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) . I n o r d e rf o re v id e n c e to q u a lif

y f o ra d m is s io n u n d e rth is 6 e xc e pt i on t o the e xc l us i ona ry rul e , the r e m us tbe a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe e vi de nc e i n que s t i on w oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d by l a w f ul m e a ns , a nd the prosec ut i on m ustdem on stra t e thatthe l aw ful m ea ns w hi ch m ade di sc ov ery i nevi t abl e w er e bei ng ac t i vel y pursued pri or t o the occurre nce of the i l l egal c onduc t . I d. a t1042 n. 2. S i nc e the N i x de c i s i on, w e ha ve c ont i nue d t o f ol l ow the B r ooki ns de c i s i on, w hi c h i s e nt i r e l y c ons i s t e ntw i th i t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T e r z a do- M a druga , 897 F . 2d 1099, 1114 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a tte r f ie ld , 7 4 3 F .2 d 8 2 7 , 8 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . I n B r ooki ns i t s e l f

the pol i c e obt a i ne d the i de nt i ty of a ke y pr os e c ut i on w i tness throu gh an un const i tut i on al i nt errogat i on of the defendant . T he C ou rt foun d “ [m ] ore than a rea sonabl e probabi l i ty e xi st ed thatno rm al po l i ce23

i nve s t i ga t i on, i f

the i nt e rr oga t i on ha d ne ve roc c urr e d, w oul d ha ve di s c l os e d the i dent i ty of [ the w i tness ] . ” 614 F . 2d at10 48 . T he t es t i m on y of the w i tness w as a dm i s s i bl e be c a us e l a w f ul pol i c e i nqui r i e s tha tw e r e a l r e a dy “ s e ti n m ot i on” pr oba bl y w oul d ha ve di s c l os e d hi s i de nt i ty . I d. S i m i l ar l y, i n T er za do -M adruga, the po l i ce ob t ai ned t he i dent i ty of a pr os e c ut i on w i tne s s by i l l e ga l l y t api ng a phone c onve r s a t i on be tw e e n the defe nd antand ano ther pers on . W e hel d thatthe w i tness ’ s i dent i ty w as adm i ss i bl e, be c a us e e ve n i f

i tw e r e unknow n t o the pol i c e a tthe t i m e of the i l l e ga l t api ng, anot her c on spi ra cy m em ber w ho w as capabl e of i dent i fy i ng the w i tness had vol unt a r i l y a gr e e d t o c oope r a t e w i th pol i c e . 897 F . 2d a t1114- 15. In thi s c as e, the evi dence J ef fe rs on spec ul at es w ou l d h ave been suppress ed by the tri al courti f hi s a tt orney had obj ec t ed al l fl ow s f rom G re er ’ s unequ i vo ca l i dent i fi ca t i on of Je ff

er son’ s voi ce as thatof the rapi st . B ec ause she hea rd hi s voi ce atthe po l i ce st at i on w hi l e he w as bei ng i nt ervi ew ed, Je ff er son argues thatthe vo i ce i de nt i f i c a t i on a nd a l l tha tf

ol l ow e d w a s a pr oduc tof hi s i l l e ga l s t op. B e f

or e the s to p , h o w e v e r , th e p o lic e h a d in f o r m a tio n th a t h a d c a u s e d th e m to f o c u s th e ir a tte n tio n o n J e f

f e r s o n . T he of f i c e r s kne w f

r om the M a y os tha tJ e f

f e r s on, w ho di d notl i ve i n the ar ea , had g ot t en hi s truck stuck fou r- t enths of a m i l e f rom the G re erre si dence24

s o m e tim e b e f

o r e 5 :2 5 a .m ., w h ic h w a s w ith in a b o u t th r e e h o u r s o f G r e e r ’s r ap e . J e f f e r s on’ s une xpl a i ne d pr oxi m i ty t o the s c e ne of the c r i m e i n the e a r l y m orni ng hour s m a de hi m the pr i m e s us pe c t , or“ pe r s on of i nt e r e s t ” i n the c a s e . T he o f f ic e r s w a n te d to ta lk w ith J e f f e r s o n , a n d th e y w a n te d to h a v e G r e e rlis te n to h is v o ic e . T h e y a ls o h a d tir e tr a c k s f r o m th e d itc h b y th e M a y o s , a n d s h o e p r in ts fr om there and t he G re erho use w here the rape had t aken pl ac e, w hi ch they w a nt e d t o c he c k out . T he di l i ge nc e w i th w hi c h the pol i c e w e r e l ooki ng f or J e f f e r s on i s s how n by the f

a c ttha thi s c a rw a s pul l e d ove ra t10: 00 p. m . tha tni ght b y tw o p o lic e c a r s c o n ta in in g f o u ro f f ic e r s . I n the a bs e nc e of

tha ta l l e ge dl y i m pr ope rs t op, i ti s unf a thom abl e tha tthe i nv es t i gat ors w ou l d n othave avai l ed them se l ves of the vari ou s w ay s i n w hi ch the y c oul d ha ve a rr a nge d f orG r e e rt o l i s t e n t o J e f

f e r s on’ s voi c e . H e w a s a tthe t i m e a S t a f

f S e r ge a nti n the A r m y , ha r dl y a pos i t i on i n w hi c h he c oul d ha ve r e m a i ne d m ut e thr oughouthi s w or k da y . T he of f i c e r s c oul d ha ve ha d s om e one t ape r ec ord h i m w hi l e he w as t al ki ng . T he t ape c ou l d then h ave been pl ay ed back f orG r e e r . O rthe y c oul d ha ve c a l l e d J e f f e r s on on the t e l e phone , e i the rope nl y or thr ough a rus e , a nd ha d G r e e rl i s t e n i n t o the c onve r s a t i on. O rthe y c oul d ha ve s im p ly h a d G r e e rc a ll J e f f e r s o n a n d lis te n to h im ta lk . S h e w o u ld n o t h a v e h a d to h ear h i m say m u ch i n o rd er t o m ak e th e i d en t i fi cat i o n . W e k n o w th atb ecau se25

w h e n G r e e rd id h e a rJ e f f e r s o n ’s v o ic e a t th e p o lic e s ta tio n , s h e im m e d ia te ly r e c ogni z e d i ta s tha tof

he rr api s t , a nd s he br oke dow n e m ot i ona l l y , s obbi ng, g e s tu r in g , a n d s h a k in g . A l l the ot her e vi dence J ef fe rs on cont ends shou l d h ave been suppress ed flo w ed fr o m G re er ’s p o siti v e id en ti fica ti o n o f h im w h ich , alo n g w ith Je ff er so n ’s lo c a tio n n e a rth e s c e n e o f th e r ap e in th e e a r ly m o rn in g h o u r s , s u p p lie d p r o b ab le c a u s e f o rh is a rr e s t. A f

te rJ e f f e r s o n w a s a rr e s te d , h e w a s p h o to g r ap h e d , a n d h is phot ogr aph be c a m e pa r tof a n a rr a y , f

r om w hi c h C hr i s t i na B a c on, S ha nnon T u c k e r , a n d S a r a h Mc C r a n i e l a t e ri d e n t i f i e d h i m a s th e a s s a i l a n ti n th e o th e rtwo r ap e s .T here i s notsi m pl y aprob abi l i ty, bu ta vi rtual ce rt ai nty, thati f the offi ce rs h a d n o t s to p p e d J e f

f e r s o n th a t n ig h t, th e y in e v itab ly w o u ld h a v e d is c o v e r e d a ll th e e v id e n c e th a t r e s u lte d f r o m th a t s to p . T h e e f

f o r ts to lo c a te J e f

f e r s o n s o th a t, a m ong othe rthi ngs , G r e e rc oul d he a rhi m s pe a k, w e r e a l r e a dy unde rw a y a nd in e v itab ly w o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d in G r e e rid e n tif y in g h is v o ic e a s th a t o f th e r ap is t. S u b tr a c t th e s to p f

r o m th e f a c tu a l p ic tu r e in th is c a s e a n d th e m o s t th a t w o u ld ha ve c ha nge d i s the t i m i ng of G r e e r ’ s i de nt i f

i c a t i on of

J e f f e r s on; i tw oul d ha ve b een d el ayed , w h i ch w o u l d h av e ch an g ed n o th i n g o f su b st an ce. U n d er th ese ci rcu m st an ces th e i n ev i t ab l e d i sco v ery ex cep t i o n t o th e ex cl u si o n ary ru l e ap p l i es,26

a nd a ny s uppr e s s i on m ot i on s houl d ha ve be e n de ni e d. T ha tm e a ns J e f f e r s on su ffered n o p rej u d i ce fro m h i s tri al co u n sel ’ s fai l u re t o fi l e a m o t i o n t o su p p ress, a n d th e in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im f a ils . III. W e r e a l i z e , of

c our s e , the pos s i bi l i ty tha ta s uppr e s s i on m ot i on w oul d ha ve be e n s uc c e s s f

ul i n the s t a t e c our t s . O ne m i ghtha ve be e n gr a nt e d e ve n though the C ons t i tut i on doe s notr e qui r e tha ti tbe . T he s t a t e tr i a l j udge w ho pr e s i de d a tthe T urne rC ounty tr i a l m a de s t a t e m e nt s i ndi c a t i ng he w oul d ha ve vi e w e d a m ot i on to s u p p r e s s f

a v o r ab ly . A n d th e G e o r g ia C o u r t o f A p p e a ls d id r e v e r s e th e I rw in C ou nty c on vi ct i on s a ft erdeem i ng tri al coun se l i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o fi l e a su p p re ss io n m o ti o n . O n th e o th erh an d , th e s tate h ab ea s c o u rt d en ied Je ff er so n ’s id e n tic a l c la im in th is c a s e , a n d th e G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d r e v ie w o f its de c i s i on. I n a n y e v e n t, it c h a n g e s n o th in g if w e a s s u m e th a t th e G e o r g ia c o u r ts w o u ld h a v e s u p p r e s s e d a ll th e e v id e n c e f lo w in g f r o m th e a lle g e d ly ille g a l s to p if tri al coun se l had fi l ed a m ot i on t o d o so. W e c an go even further a nd as sum e that the y w oul d ha ve done s o a nd the r e s ul tw oul d ha ve be e n a n a c qui tt a l of J e f f e r s on on the s e T urne rC ounty c ha r ge s , j us ta s he w a s a c qui tt e d w he n r e tr i e d on the I rw in C o u n ty c h a r g e s . E v e n w ith th e s e a s s u m p tio n s f e d e r a l h ab e a s r e lie f

is s till27

due t o be de ni e d, be c a us e a s w e ha ve e xpl a i ne d the i ne vi t abl e di s c ove ry doc tr i ne m e a ns tha tthe gr a nt i ng of a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s w oul d notha ve be e n w a rr a nt e d; g r a n tin g th e m o tio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n th e w r o n g r e s u lt. I tm i ghts e e m tha ti f

the s t a t e c our t s w oul d ha ve m i s t a ke nl y gr a nt e d the m ot i on t o sup pres s a nd changed t he re sul tof the tri al , as w e a re as sum i ng they w ou l d h ave, coun se l ’ s f ai l ure t o fi l e the m ot i on prej ud i ce d Jef fe rs on . T hat r e a s o n in g , h o w e v e r , is d ir e c tly c o n tr a ry to th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in L o c k h a r t v . F r e tw e ll, 5 0 6 U .S . 3 6 4 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 8 3 8 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . In F re tw el l , as i n the pres entca se , i f c ou nsel had m ade a n o bj ec t i on that the pe t i t i one rc l a i m s he s houl d ha ve , the s t a t e c our tw oul d ha ve t a ke n a n a c t i on f a vor abl e t o the de f

e nda nt , w hi c h w oul d ha ve a c tua l l y c ha nge d the r e s ul tof the tr ia l. F r e tw e ll, 5 0 6 U .S . a t 3 6 6 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 8 4 1 . ( T h e r e th e o b je c tio n w o u ld ha ve r e s ul t e d i n the pe t i t i one rbe i ng i ne l i gi bl e f ora de a th s e nt e nc e , i d. a t368, 113 S . C t . a t842; he r e w e a r e a s s um i ng the obj e c t i on w oul d ha ve r e s ul t e d i n the s u p p r e s s io n o f

e n o u g h o f

th e d a m a g in g e v id e n c e a g a in s t J e f f e r s o n th a t h e w o u ld have been acqui tt ed on re tri al . ) I n F re tw el l , as i n the pres entca se , i f c ou nsel had o b je c te d th e s ta te c o u r t w o u ld h a v e ta k e n th e r e s u lt- c h a n g in g a c tio n f a v o r ab le to the pet i t i on erbase d o n the erroneou s bel i ef thatthe fe dera l C on st i tut i on re qu i re d i tt o d o so. Id. at37 1-72 , 11 3 S . C t . at84 3-44 . In F re tw el l , as i n the pres entca se ,28

the pet i t i on erar gu ed thatthe fa cta di ff er entre sul tw ou l d h ave occurr ed had c o u n s e l o b

je c te d in s ta te c o u r t m e a n s th a t th e S tr ic k la n d p r e ju d ic e r e q u ir e m e n t is s a tis f ie d . I d . a t 3 6 7 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 8 4 1 . T h a t a r g u m e n t h a s a lo t o f s u r f a c e ap p e a l, bu tthe S up re m e C ou rtw entbeyond the surf ac e of i ti n F re tw el l and i n o bedi ence to th a t d e c is io n s o m u s t w e . A s the S upr e m e C our te xpl a i ne d i n i t s F r e tw e l l opi ni on, the c r i t i c a l f oc us of the S tr i c kl a nd pr e

j udi c e i nqui ry i s notr e s ul t s pe rs e , butthe f a i rne s s a nd r e liab ility o f

th e a d v e r s a ry p r o c e e d in g in q u e s tio n . 5 0 6 U .S . a t 3 6 9 - 7 1 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t842- 43. I f

the pr oc e e di ng w a s f

a i ra nd the r e s ul ti s r e l i abl e , i ti s i m m a t e r i a l f or purpos e s of

the pr e j udi c e i nqui ry w he the rc ouns e l c oul d ha ve done s om e thi ng th a t w o u ld h a v e b r o u g h t ab o u t a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt. O r , a s th e C o u r t e x p la in e d it:

“ [ A ] n a na l y s i s f

oc us i ng s ol e l y on m e r e out c om e de t e r m i na t i on, w i thouta tt e nt i on to w h e th e rth e r e s u lt o f

th e p r o c e e d in g w a s f

u n d a m e n ta lly u n f

a iro ru n r e liab le , is d e f e c t i v e . To s e ta s i d e a c o n v i c t i o n o rs e n t e n c e s o l e l y b e c a u s e th e o u t c o me w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e r e n t b u t f

o rc o u n s e l’s e rr o rm a y g r a n t th e d e f e n d a n t a w i ndf a l l t o w hi c h the l a w doe s note nt i t l e hi m . ” I d. a t369- 70, 113 S . C t . a t842- 4 3 ( i n t e rn a l ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n s o mi tt e d ) ; s e e a l s o , Br a d y v . M a ry l a n d , 3 7 3 U . S. 8 3 , 9 0 , 8 3 S . C t. 1 1 9 4 , 1 1 9 8 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ( r e je c tin g a “s p o r tin g th e o ry o f ju s tic e ” in r e g a r d to th e p r e

ju d ic e c o m p o n e n t o f

B r a d y c la im s ) .29

W hen a feder al habeas courti s dec i di ng w hether t o g ra nta s t at e pri soner re l i ef on i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s, fa i rnes s a nd re l i abi l i ty a re de f i ne d i n t e r m s of

w ha tthe C ons t i tut i on r e qui r e s , noti n t e r m s of w ha tthe pe t i t i one rm i ghtha ve ga i ne d f r om the s t a t e c our t s unde ra n e rr one ous vi e w of f e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l la w . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t p u t it n ic e ly w h e n it s a id th a t in e v a lu a tin g p r e

ju d ic e ac o u r t s h o u ld n o t c o n s id e ra n e rr o rb y c o u n s e l th a t m e r e ly “d e p r iv e d [ th e d e f

e n d a n t] o f

th e c h a n c e to h a v e th e s ta te c o u r t m a k e a n e rr o rin h is f a v o r .” F r e tw e ll, 5 0 6 U .S . a t 3 7 1 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 8 4 3 . J e f f e r s on, l i ke F r e tw e l l , w a s note nt i t l e d t o ha ve hi s c ouns e l pr e s e ntthe s t a t e c our t s w i th a n oppor tuni ty t o m a ke a n e rr ori n hi s f a vor . T he obj e c t i on J e f f e r s o n in s is ts h is c o u n s e l o u g h t to h a v e m a d e , lik e th e o n e F r e tw e ll in s is te d h is c o u n s e l o u g h t to h a v e m a d e , s h o u ld h a v e b e e n d e n ie d . J e f f e r s o n , lik e F r e tw e ll, is note nt i t l e d t o aw i ndf

a l l . J e f f e r s on w a s notpr e

j udi c e d i n the s e ns e r e qui r e d by S tr i c kl a nd, j us ta s F r e tw e l l w a s not . W e m us tr e j e c tJ e f f e r s on’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im ju s t a s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e je c te d F r e tw e ll’s . T h e d e c i s i o n o f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s R E VE R S E D.