## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 3271 R ONAL D D. W I L L I A MS, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v.
B RUCE L E MM ON, S up er i ntendent ofthe W abas h Val l ey Corr ecti onalFa ci l i ty, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:05- CV-624- LJM-WTL

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Ju dge

. A RG UE D O CT OB ER 2, 2007

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 4, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd M A N I ON a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . A n I n d i a n a j u r y f o u n d R o na l d Wi l l i a ms gui l ty ofm urder, and the sta te tr i alco urt sente nced hi m to 75 y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t. W i l l i ams’s co nv i ct i o n a nd s en tence were up hel d on di re ct ap p eal and on co l l ate ra l re vi ew i n the I nd i ana co urts
. W i l l i am s then peti ti oned f or a wri t o fhabea s co rpus. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed that2 N o. 06

- 3271 pet i ti o n. W e i ss ue d a c er ti fi ca te o fa ppea lab i l i tyo n the qu est i o n whe th erhi s tr i alc o uns elr en der ed co ns ti tu ti o nal l y defi ci ent a ssi sta n c e. On app ealW i l l i am s f aul ts tr i al c ou n se l for failin g t o in te rv iew on e o f tw o ot h er p eo p le wh o a r r i v e d a tth e s c e n e w h e r e th e mu r d e r w a s c o mmi t t e d.

I. I n M ay 1998 M atthew M cGarve y tr avel ed by c ar w i th f r i en ds to a ne i g hb o r ho o d i n I ndi an apo l i s, I ndi an a, t o b uy c ra c k c oc ain e. W h en th ey arr ive d atap p ro x im at ely 11: 00 PM, M cGarve y l eft the c arand w ent a l one to m ake his p urc ha se. W ithin m inu tes h e suffered a head injury tha tc a us e d h i s de a th. McG a r v e y ’ s fr i e nd s we r e park ed ro ughl y 2 00 feetfr om wh er e he w as beat en and did not se e o r he arwhatha ppen ed. ButAdai r S m i tha nd H oward Defo rd, al so l oo ki ng to buy drugs that ni ght, had a b e t t e r v i e w. Defo rd and S m ith dro ve aw ay afterse ei ng M cGarve y on the g r o un d; the y di d n o tc a l l the p o l i c e . Autho r i t i es fi rst l ea r ne d abo utthe m s ev er alwee k s l at erwhena detect i ve w ent t o Sm i th’ s r esi dence to questi on h er l i vei n boy f ri end about an unrel ate d hom i ci d e. S m i th wanted t o c o oper ate , h o pi ngtha ti two ul d h e l p he r b o y f r i e nd

. K now i ng tha t the o ffi cerwo uld be i nter est ed i n i nfo rm ati on about the M c G ar vey m urder, she vol unteer ed that she a nd D efo rd h ad happ ened upon the s cene and w i tnesse d M cGarve y on the pavem ent surr ounded byat tack

er s. W i l l i am s, she sai d, str uck M cGarve y on the head w i th a b l a c kme t a l p o l e w h i l e o th e r s p u n c h e d a n d k i c k e d h i m.N o. 06

- 3271 3 Po l i ce pr o m ptly a sk ed Def ord forhi s ve r si o n o fthe i nc i den t. De f o r d, who ha d b ee n dr i ving, s ai d tha t th e at ta ckha d e nde d b efo r e he s aw a ny th i ng . Al l tha t he c o ul d s a y o f hi s o wn k no wl e dg e wa s tha t M c Ga r vey was p ro n e o n th e s tr ee t, w h ile ot h er m en (th e s am e p eo p le w ho S m i th had nam ed) w er e l aughi ng as they l eft. Despi te thi s deni alo fper sonalkno w l edge, h e al so narr ate d detai l s o fthe att ack; acc or ding to Defo rd, S m i th had told h im thes e d e t ail s. Som e of th e d etails that D eford fur ni sh ed di d no t m at chtho se i n S m ith’s s ta te m en t, b ut Defo r d s ai d tha t S m i thha d t o l d hi m tha t “s he ’ d s ee n a bu nc h of guys ki cking t h is g u y on th e street .
. . [ an d ] a gu y n am ed B lac kie [W illiam s] h it h im w ith a p ip e.” W i l l i am s and fi ve codefendants w er e charg ed w i th m urd er. Sm ith w as d ep osed abou t thr ee w eeks be fore tr i al

. Contr adic ti ng wh at she had t ol d the dete cti ve, S m i th te st i fi ed th atM cGa r ve y was s ti l l s ta ndi ngwhens he a nd D efo rd tu rn ed a c or n er an d sa w h im for t h e firs t t im e. A ll o fthe de fen dan ts , s he sa id, wer e k i ck i nga nd pun ch i ng hi m , and he fel l to the gr ound afterW i l l i am s hi t hi m o n the he ad w i th a bl ack pol e. S m i th repeate d seve ra l ti m es dur i nghe r de po si ti o n tha t Defo r d ha d “ se eni t al l, ” buts he al so m ain ta i ned that “by l aw , he’ s bl i nd

. ” Altho ugh W i l l i am s’ s a pp oi nt ed co unsel, M ar k Inm an, part i ci pated i n Sm i th’ s deposi ti on a nd had re ad Defo rd’ s s tat em ent, he di d n o ti nt e r v i e w o r s ub po e na De f o r d. The de fen dan ts wer e tr i ed j o i nt l y, wi thS m i th as the sta te’ s pri m ar y witness. A t the Februar y 19 99 tr i al, S m i th r epe at ed hera ss er ti o ns tha t sh e sa w M cGa r ve y “ g et ting beat up ” by the defe nd ants. Sm i th i nsi ste d that w h ile4 N o. 06

- 3271

sea ted i n Defo rd’ s ca r she s aw W illi am s hi t M cGarve y o n the he ad w i th a bl ack pol e. She als o i denti fi ed sev er alo ther a t t a c k e r s a nd s pe c i fi c a l l y de s c r ib e d h o w e a c h pu nc he d, k i c ked, o r o the r wi s e a s s a ul t e d h i m. S mi th c o nc e de d, th o ug h, thats he ha d b ee n s m o k i ngc r ac ka nd mar ij ua na o n the n ight of the i nc i den t, a nd tha t sh e to l d the dete ct i ve i ni ti al l y tha t sh e sa w se ve n men be at i ng M cGarve y, not si x as she sai d a t tr i al

. She co nceded that w hen fi rs t in te rv i ew ed she tol d the dete cti ve that M cGa r ve y was o n the g r o und, no t st an di ng, w he n s he and D ef or d arr i ved. S m i th al so adm i tte d that s he ag re ed to speak w i th the detec ti ve i n an e ff or t t o getherbo yf r i en d “ o uto ft r o ubl e. ” Defo r d was no t ca l l ed bya ny par ty. T he j ur y f o und Wi l l i ams gui l tyo fmurde r . F o ur of W i l l i am s’ s co defe nd ants w er e co nvi cted o f i nv o l un t a r y ma ns l a ught e r, a nd the o the r wa s a c qu i t t e d. W i l l i am s a pp eal ed, ar gui ng tha t ( 1) the sta te’ s e vi dence w as i n su ffi ci ent t o supp or t hi s co nvi cti on, ( 2) the tr i al cour t abused i ts discre ti on in excl ud i ng ev i dence that S m i thha d “ pr ev i o us l y wor k ed f o r the S ta te a s a co nfi denti al i nfo rm ant w hi l e usi ng drugs”; and ( 3) the t rial co ur t sh o ul d ha ve di smi ss ed the i ndi ct m en t be ca us e th e pros ecuto r w ai ted unti l tr i alto di scl ose the note s o f p olic e w itn es se s. T h e C ou rto f A p p ea ls of In d ian a u p h eld W i l l i am s’ s co nvi cti on, as di d the st ate suprem e co urt. S ee Wil li am s v. State, 74 9 N
. E.2 d 1139 ( I nd

. 20 01)

. The st ate ap p ella te co u rtals o u p h eld th e c on v i c tio n s o f h is codefendants. S ee Ga rdnerv. State, 7 2 4 N. E. 2d 624 ( I nd

. A p p . 2000). W i l l i am s peti ti on ed the sta te j ud i ci ar y forpost
- convi cti on r el i ef, ar gui ng tha t his t rial co unselhad furni shedN o. 06

- 3271 5 in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e. W illia m s su b m itt ed an affid av it f r o m De f o r d a ve r r i ngtha t he woul d ha ve t es ti fi ed f avorabl y t o W i l l i am s i fh e had been ca l l ed at tr i al

. The tr i al c ou rtco n d u c te d a tw o-p ar t e vid en t iar y h ea rin g on W ill i am s’ s peti ti on. A t the fi rs t par t in M ar ch 200 4, I nm an tes ti fi ed that he had not i nter vi ew ed Defo rd be cause S m i thhad sa i d tha t Defo r d i s l eg al l y b l i nd. Nothi ngi n the re c or d su g g e s t s t h at Inm an ind ep en d en tly ve rified th is alle ga tio n . A t t h e h ea rin g In m an st at ed th at h e t y p i c a lly w ou ld n otint er vie w a p ot en tia l w itn es s w h os e t es timon y wo ul d b e “ i nc ul pa t o r y o r . . . n e ut r a l

. ” Bu tInman ad m itt ed th at D efo r d ’s s ta te m en t t o th e p olic e t h at h is knowle dge o fthe m urder w as l i m i ted t o w hat S m i th had tol d him co ntra dicted her tes ti m ony that Defo rd had w i tness ed the enti re in ci dent. I nm an al so conceded that i t would have m ad e sense to i nter vi ew Def or d. W hen as k ed whethe r he ha d an y ex pl an at i o n f o r not co ntact i ng Def or d, I nm an r epl i ed that he di d not. Defo r d was s ubpo en ae d but be ca m e i l l, s o a t th e se co nd part ofthe hear i ng i n J une 200 4 W i l l i am s e n tered i nto ev id en ce the di sco ver y deposi ti on g i ven byDef or d on A pri l 20 , 20 04, duri ng the post
- convi c tion proce edi ngs. De f o r d h a d s a i d i n 1 9 9 9 th a t h e w a s w o r k i n g a s a t o wtruckdr i ve r . Had he b ee n c all ed atW i l l i ams’ s tr i al, he sai d, he would have te sti fi ed that nei th er he no r Sm i th s a w McGa r v e y b e i nga t t a c k e d. Ac c o r di ngt o De f o r d, Sm i th co uld nothave se en th e as sault because M cGarve y w as l yi ng o n the gr ou n d by hi m sel fwh en he and Sm i th ar ri ved atthe scene; Def or d s aid thathe ha d assum ed that M cGarve y was i n toxi cate d. Defo rd acknow l edged th at he saw a grou p of m en, includ ing one of W il li am s’s6 N o. 06

- 3271

co defen dan ts , s ta ndi ngi n the st reet th atni g ht, b uthe sai d that the cl ose st m an “w as about 10, 15 feetaway” fro m Mc Ga r v e y . D e f o r d wo r e th i c ke y e g l a s s e s d u r i n gthe vi de ot aped dep osi ti on, but he was not ask ed w hether hi s v i si on i m pai re d his per cepti on o fthe cri m e s cene. The tr i alco urt denie d W i l l i am s’ s peti ti on for post

c on vic t i o n relie f. Th e c ou rtrea so n ed th at D efo rd ’s t es timo n y w o u l d n o th a v e c h a n g e d th e t r i a l ’ s o u t c o me b ec au se h is s ta te m en t to t h e p olic e in Ju ly 19 98 t h at h e “ d id n ot actual l y s ee anythi ng” c onfl i cted with hi s deposi ti on te s t i mon y tha tS mi th c o ul d n o th a v e s e e n the de fendants at ta c k M c G ar ve y. Se e Wil li am s v. State, No
. 4 9 G0 3

- 9 8 0 7

- PC

1236 41 ( M ar i on S up er i orCt. A ug. 9, 20 04) ( unp ubl i shed deci si on)

. The co urt al so decl ar ed that Defo rd’ s deposi ti on te st i m o ny was “ notc r edibl e, e spe ci al l y c o ns i der i ngthe v i s ua l i mpa i r m ent he f a c e s . ” And , the c o ur tc o nt i nu e d, Defo rd’ s absence had not prej ud i ced W i l l i am s be cause at tr ial S m i thwas “ i m pea ch ed wi thhe r pr i o r i nc o ns i st en t sta tem ents. ” The Court ofA pp eal s o fI nd i ana a gr eed with these co ncl usi ons. That co urt ass er ted thatI nm an “cho se n ott o i n ve st iga te D efo rd be c au se h is t es tim on y w ou ld have been i ncri m i nati ng or neutra l, ” and concl ud ed th at Inm an ’s d ec isio n w as “ a m at te r of t ria l st ra te gy ” it w oul d not seco nd

- guess . S ee Wil li am s v. State, N o. 49 A 04- 04 09 -P C -48 2 (In d . A p p . Feb . 3, 200 5) (u n p u b l i s h e d d ec isi on)

. I t fol l ows, the cour t s ai d, that W illiam s “ f ai l ed to est abl i sh prej ud i ce b ecause h e di d not dem onst ra te that, butf o r cou nse l ’ s er r o r, the r es ul t o fthe pr o ce eding w ou ld h av e b ee n d iffer en t.” W i l l i am s then sou gh t col l ate ra l r evi ew i n federa l co urt. The di st r i ctc o ur t o bs er ve d tha t “S m i th ’ s tr i alt es ti m o nyN o. 06

- 3271 7 ofW i l l i am s’ at tacko n M cGarvey was devast ati ng to W il li am s . A ny i nform ation cas ting d ou bt on Sm ith’s ac co untc o ul d ha ve b ee n us eful to W i l l i ams’ s defen se . ” But the di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed tha t the Ind i ana co urt had cor re ctl y a pp l i ed St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U.S

. 68 8 ( 1984) , and that i t was notunrea sonab l e forthatco urt to fi nd t hat Inm an’ s deci si on notto cal l Def or d did not co ns ti tu te de fi ci en t per f o r m an ce b ec au se hi s te st i m o ny “wo ul d ha ve b ee n inc r i m i na tingo r ne ut ral

. ” Quo ting th e cou rt of ap p eals’s conc lusion, the d istri ct cou rt de term i ned that W i l l i am s fa i l ed to es tabl i sh prej ud i ce “ because he d i d not dem onst ra te that ther e was a re aso nabl e pr obabi l i ty t h a t, b u tf o r t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s e r r o r, th e r e s u l to ft he proce edi ng would have b een di ffer ent. ” The di str i ct co ur t th er efo r e den i ed W i l l i ams’ s pet i ti o n.

II. W ill i am s m ai ntai ns thathe r ecei ved i neffecti ve a s s i s t a nc e b e c a us e h i s l a wy e r di d n o ti nt e r v i e w De f o r d, w ho, fi ve yea rs afterthe tr i al, sa i d that he had not see n W i lliam s beat the v i cti m and that Sm i th, the passenge r i n hi s ca r w ho had i denti fi ed W i l l i am s a s a n ass ai l ant, c o u l d n o t h a v e s e e n Wi l l i a ms d o i t
. Al th o u g h Wi l l i a ms ch a s t i s e s h i s l a wy e r f o r th i s o mi s s i o n, h e d o e s n o t t e l l us w h at h is law ye r d id d o in h is d efe n s e , a n d t h is is a big o m i ss i o n. Wh e n a p r i s o n e r s e e k s a w r i to fh ab e a s c o r pu s f r o m a fede ral cou rt, the q ue stion is w he th er th e state cou rt applied the S up re m e Cour t’ s pre cedents re aso nabl y, not w h e t h e r i t d id so correctly. 28 U
. S. C

. §2254 (d); Hol l a n d v.8 N o. 06

- 3271 Jac ks on , 5 42 U. S

. 6 49 ( 20 04 ) ( di sc us sing th e st atut e an d th e Cou r t’ s ear l i erde ci si o ns o n the s co pe o fr ev i ew)

. Our fi rs t quest i on is wh ethersingl e o ver si ghts by counsel vi o l at e th e si xth a m en dm en t. The a ns weri s no . The Suprem e Cour t insi sts that j ud ges m ust no t e xam i ne a l awy er ’ s erro r ( o fo m i ss i o n o r c o m m i ss i o n) i n i so l at i o n. Se e, e.g ., St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S

. at69 0–96
. I t i s e sse nti alto ev al ua te the enti r e co ur se o fthe de fen se , b ec au se the questi on i s no t whether the l aw yer ’ s workwas er ro r- f re e, o r the b es t po ss ibl e appr o ac h, o r e ve n a n a ve r ag e o ne , b ut whethe r the de fend an t ha d the “ co uns el ” o fwhi chthe si xth a m en dm en t s p eak s. The Co ur t ha s al l o wed f o r the p os sib ility th at a sin gle err or m ay su ffice “if th at err or is s uffi c i e nt l y e g r e g i o us a nd p r ej ud i c i al .” M urra y v . Ca rrier, 47 7 U. S

. 4 78 , 4 96 ( 19 86 )

. Le stth is e xc ept i o n s wal l o w the rule, how ever, w e m us t t a k e th e Justices at th eir w ord an d sear ch f oran “ egr egi ous” er ro r

— a n o mi s s i o n of s o me th i n go b v i o u s l y b e t t e r ( i n l i g h to fwh a twa s kn o wn a tthe t i me) tha n the l i ne o fde fe ns e th a tc o un s e l p ur s ue d. Bu t W i l l i am s doe s no t co nten d t h at the s tat e co urt acte d unreas onabl y in eva l uati ng wh ether the er ro r w as “eg re gi ous” w hen com pared w i th wh at I nm an di d fo r hi s cl i ent. T h e s tate’s ap p ell ate cou rt ana lyzed cou ns el’ s ent ire per f o r m an ce a nd o bs er ve d t hat i t i nc l ude d “ co ns ul ting wi th[ W i l l i ams] , f o r m ul at i nga the o r y o fde fen se , c o nduct i nga n inv es ti g at i o n t o s uppo r t th atthe o r y, de po sing wi tn es se s, o bj ec tingt o j ur y i ns truct i o ns, c r o ss - ex ami ni ng th e [ S t a t e ’ s ] wi tn e s s e s , o bj e c t i n g t o th e a d mi s s i o n o ft he St ate ’ s e vi dence, m oving f ordi sm iss al ofthe charg e, m o vingf o r a j udg m en t o n the ev i den ce , a nd a r g ui ng hi s theor y o fdefense to the j ury. ” C ou n sel did eno ugh to giv e W illiam s a rea so n ab le s h otatan ac q u itt al.N o. 06

- 3271 9 W o ul d i nt er vi ewi ngDe f o r d o bv i o us l y ha ve b ee n a be tt erus e o ft i m e th anthe s te ps I nm an ac tu al l y t o o k ? The sta te cour t d i d not a ct unr eas onabl y in conclud i ng tha t i n t e r v i e win gD e f o r d w o u l d n o th a v e s e e me d a tth e t i me a n o b v i o us l y super i o r thingt o do , b e c a us e De f o r d had been i nter vi ew ed, bythe p olice. W hat Def or d sai d then ( i n 199 8) i s that hi s e nti re descr i pti on had c om e fro m Sm i th

— i n o th erwor ds, th at S m i thha d s ee n the a tt ac k, a nd he had n ot. G iven th e hea rsay rule, th is m ean t tha t D eford had nothi ng useful to contr ibute. Law yers prepar i ng f or tr ial act sensibl y in deci ding not to re - i nter vi ew witnesse s who ha ve a l re ady r eve al ed that eve ry thi ng the y coul d say w oul d be inadm i ssibl e. There ar e tw o potenti alr esponse s t o thi s. Pe r ha ps the r e i s a per ser ule thatl aw yer s a l w ays m ust i nter vi ew per sons w ho were nearthe cri m e in or der t o l ear n w hethertheyar e in f act eye w i tness es, wh ethero r not they have tal ked to the pol i ce. Bu t the S up re m e Cour t has ne v e r a nn o un c e d s uc h a r ul e , a nd u nd e r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d) onl y the deci si ons ofthe Suprem e Cour t a re enf or ceabl e on co llat er al re vi e w . W h at is m or e, th is c ou rth as h eld th at no co ns ti tu ti o na l r ul e f o rbi ds l awy er s f r o m re l y i ng o n int er view s con duct ed bythe po l i ce whende ci di ng w h at ad d itio n al in q u iries a re in o rd er . Bieghl e rv. M cBr i de, 389 F.3d 701, 708 (7th Cir. 2004). T he s ec o nd po te nt i alr eply i s th atwhatDe f o r d t o l d the p olic e in 19 98 w as in c on sis te n t w ith w h at Sm ith sa id in 19 98 ( an d wi thS m i th ’ s te st i m o ny a t tr i ali n 1999). Y etthe c o nfl i c t, i f the r e wa s o ne , wa s i n de t a i l r a the r than subst an ce . De f ord tol d the po l i ce tha t he was j us t r el ay i ng10 N o. 06

- 3271

w hat S m i th had to l d him s he had se en. Def or d m ay have re m em ber ed Sm i th’ s sta tem ents poor l y, but the he ar say rule foreclose s t h is as a grou nd of ex am ination. ( D eford m ay h av e se en a few thi ngs, such a s the pro ne bo dy, in d ep en d en tly; the p oint is th at acc ord ing to D eford’s 1998 vers ion al l detai l s about w ho di d w hat t o w hom c am e fro m Sm ith .) Only i fDef or d had told t h e p ol i ce in 199 8 that S m i th co ul d n oth av e s ee n w h at sh e c l a i m s t o h av e s ee n w ou ld ther e be a str ong confl i ct, and th u s a pre ssing nee d to i nt e r v i e w De f o r d. Thi s i s wh a tDe f o r d dids ayi n 2 00 4. But i n 199 8 he sai d other w i se. The pol i ce in q u ire d in 1 998 w hether D ef or d had any r eas on t o doubt S m i th’ s abi l i ty t o s e e wh a th a d h a pp e ne d: Offi cer : Did yo u ask[ Sm i th] how she co uld s ee thi s? Defo rd: N o Idi d not. Offi cer : W here di d you a ssum e that s he sa w thi s? Defo r d: W hi l e we wer e si tt i ngo n 2 1s t S tr eet, making

a tu r n. Offi cer : Du ring tha t 2 m i nute ti m e? Defo rd: Yes. W illiam s’ s la w ye r h ad th is t ra n sc rip t, w h ich ga ve h im every r eason to th ink th at an interview of D e ford wo ul d h a v e be e n po i nt l e s s . A nd th e s t a t e c o ur tc o nc ur r e d. I nd i ana’ s j ud i ci ar y c oncl ud ed that coun se l exe rci sed reason able tactical j ud gm en t, an d i n d e ed that De ford’s sta tem ent in 200 4 was a re cent f abr i cati on: the tri alj ud ge exp ress l y f o und De f o r d no t cr edibl e. Thi s l at te r fi ndi ngN o. 06

- 3271 11

m eans that, had Defo rd b een c al l ed i n 199 9, a hear say o bj e c t i o n wo u l d h a v e p r e v e n t e d h i m fr o m t e s t i fy i ng . He had no i nfo rm at ion useful to the defense

— orso co unsel re aso nabl y c oul d have co ncl ud ed . W hatev ero ne m ay sa y i n r etrosp ec t, the s ta te c o ur t di d no t ex ce ed th e bounds of re aso nabl eness i n concl ud i ng that Inm an d id n o t c om m it an “egregious ” om issi on from 1999’s perspect i ve. This i s no t t o deny thatInm an m ay have had r eas ons to do ubt whethe r Defo r d r ea l l y was j us t passi ng a l o ng Sm i th’ s obser vati ons. H ow coul d she have se en the m êl ée and D ef or d n ot ? B ut to pose such a questi on i s no t t o show that the st ate co urt’ s di sposi ti on was u n re asonabl e. Defo rd was the dri verand w as l oo ki ng wh er e he w as going, at th e road ahea d of him , w hile Sm ith, a p assen ger, could s w i velherhead to watch a fra cas on the si dew al k. Pa ss en gers o fte n s ee thi ng s th atdr i ve r s do no t. And Defo rd does notse e v er y w ell. The r eco rd does not disc l ose detai l s about hi s per i pheralvi si on a t ni ght. W i l l i am s co ntends that D ef or d m ust have had atl eas t 2 0/40 vi si on with the ai d ofgl ass es orco ntact l enses, be c au se that’ s necessa ryf ora com m er ci aldri ver ’ s l i cense ( w hi ch Defo r d woul d ha ve n eed ed t o dr i ve a t o w tr uck, the occupati on he cl ai m ed to pursue) , but (a) the r eco rd does n otsh ow th at D efo rd ac tu ally h ad su c h a lice n s e , (b ) it do es not sh ow tha t Defo r d was wea r i nghi s g l as se s atthe tim e in qu estion, an d (c) it d oes not even show that De ford dr o v e a t o w t r uc k

. De f o r d said that he drove a to w truck, bu t the state j ud iciary d isbeli eved him

. I f th e record c o nt ained som e evide nc e corroborating De ford’s asserti ons, such as a com m er ci all i cense orev en a pay stub fro m12 N o. 06

- 3271
a t ow-tr uck o perat or, then w e m i ght g et an i nd i re ct e s t im a t e of his visua l acu ity. Bu t allw e hav e is Sm ith’s sta tem ent tha t Def or d w as l ega l l y b l i nd , the obs er vati on th athe wor e th i ckg l as se s athis de po si ti o n in 2 00 4, a nd D efo rd ’s s elf-s er vin g a ss er tio n th at h e c ou ld se e w ell enough. A federa l co urt can’ t a ssum e the tru th o f De f o r d’ s t e s t i mon y a nd us e tha t a s s umpt i o n to o v e r r i de the s tat e co urt’ s co ncl usi on that he i s no t cr edibl e. The s ta te c o urt m ade t wo v i ta l fi ndi ng s o ff ac t. One is th at Defo rd was l yi ng i n 200 4. The o theri s that Inm an mad e a r e a s o ne d t a c t i c a l de c i s i o n n o tto i nt e r v i e w De f o r d, gi ven what Defo rd al re ady had s aid to the pol i ce. A st ate c ou rt ’s re so lu tio n of a fa c tu al d isp u te st an d s u n les s it f ai l ed to de ve l o p the r ec o r d ful l y a nd “ cl ea r a nd c o nv i nc i ng e v i de nc e ” de mon s t r a t e s tha t a n e r r o r o cc ur r e d. 28 U
. S. C

. §2254 (e). W e do not thi nk tha t cl earand convinci ng ev idence contr adic ts the fi nd i ng tha t Def or d w as l yi ng in 200 4 about w hat he had seen, about w hether Sm i th co uld have se en w h at sh e s aid sh e h ad , an d a b o u t h ow h e w ou ld have t e s t i fi e d i fc a l l e d in 1 9 9 9
. S uc h a fi nd i ng, i fma de by a fe derald i str i ct j ud ge on the exis ti ng reco rd, would have to be s ustai ned on a p p ea l. Se e A nders on v. B es se m erCity, 47 0 U. S

. 5 64 ( 19 85 ) ( di sc us singthe st an dar d unde r F ed. R. C iv. P . 52). O n rev iew u n d er R u le 5 2, a c o u rtof ap p ea ls re spects a cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng unl ess the j ud ge has t ake n a vi ew inconsi ste nt with the l aw s o fphysi cs o r w i th uncontra dict ed docum en tar y e vi dence. N othi ng o fthat so r t unde r m i ne s th e st at e j udg e’ s co nc l us i o n tha t Def ord to ld th e t ru th to th e p o l i c e i n 19 98 an d lied ath is d ep os i-N o. 06

- 3271 13 ti on in 200 4. T he contra dict i on is its el fallthat’ s nee ded to su ppo r t a cr edibi l i tyde ci si o n. Tha t Defo r d ha s so m e k i nd ofvi suali m pai rm ent a l so i s undis pu ted; ther e m ay be doubt abo ut how seve re the i m pa irm en t is , but i ts exi ste nc e i s r ea l, an d thi s to o s uppo r ts the c r edibi l i tyde ci si o n. T he stan d ard un d er 28 U .S .C

. §2254 (e) is even m ore f avo rabl e t o the fi nd i ngs under re vi ew , but si nce these fi nd i ngs w ou l d survi ve an appealunder Rul e 5 2 they m u st st an d u n d er §2 25 4(e ) as w ell. A s forthe questi on wh etherW i l l i am s’ s law yer m ade a tact i caldeci si on: atthe post-co n vi cti on hea ring, Inm an said th at he d id not rem em ber th e case w ell, or D e ford ’s state m en t at all

. Be cau se he di d n ’t rem em ber D eford’s role, he cou ld n ot give a s p e c if ic reason for not interview ing him

. Bu t I nm an a d d ed that he rou tinely i nt ervi ewe d a ny o ne who a ppea r ed to hav e an y e vi den ce , b ut th atj us t as r o ut i ne l y he di d no t i nt er vi ew pe o pl e who di d no t se em to ha ve e xc ul pat o r y e vi den ce. Tha t’ s th e basi s o fthe sta te cou rt ’s infe re nce that Inm an m ade a tact ical d ecision not to i nt ervie w D eford. A l aw yer’s descri pti on o fh is norm alprac ti ce a l l ows a s tat e co urt to c on c lu d e t h at h e a c te d in a c c o r d w ith th at p ra c tic e. (T h is i s a r outi ne i nfe re nce, i n to rtl aw as w el l as post
- convi cti on r ev i ew. ) W i l l i ams’ s cu r r en t r en di ti o n ofthi s a s equi va l en t to “ c o un s e l di dn ’ th a v e a r e a s o n” i s i nc o r r e c t ; that I nm anco ul d no t r emembera r ea so n i s wel l s ho r t o fthe p ro p os itio n th at h e d id n ot h a v e o n e; w e c an n otfau lt th e s ta te co u rtfor c o n c l u d in g t h at co u n se l ac te d in acco rd with hi s re gul arprac ti ce a nd thus had t acti cal re aso ns f orhi s deci si ons.14 N o. 06

- 3271 W il li am s argu es as ifthis ap p eal w ere a replay of Sta nley v. Ba rtley , 4 65 F. 3d 810 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)

. H e thi nks that Sta nley es tabl i sh es a r ul e th at f ai l ur e to i nt er vi ew a ny potenti al w i tness l eads to col l ate ra l re l i efauto m ati cal l y. Sta nley d id n otan n ou n c e a n y s u c h ru le

— an d , i f it h ad , i t coul d not be r eco nci l ed w i th §2 25 4(d ) , wh i ch say s that onl y deci si ons of the Suprem e Court m ay be e n forced aga i nst the st ate s o n col l ate ra l r evi ew . N ew r ule s, such as “ i nter vi ew al l pote nti aley ew i tness es” , m ust be es tabl i shed on di re c t a pp eal ; theycan’ t be devi sed byfedera l c o ur t s o fa pp e a l s a nd a pp l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y to s e ta s i de th e jud g m e n ts of st at e c ou rt s. Se e, e.g ., Ca rey v. M usl adin , 549 U
. S. 70 (2006); Wrigh t v
. V a n P a tten , 12 8 S

. Ct. 74 3 (2008). Ata l l e v e nt s , Wi l l i a ms mi s r eads Sta nley

. That deci si on r el i ed he av i l y o n the c o nt ex t o fc o uns el ’ s o m i ss i o n. S ta nl ey’ s l aw yerdi d nothi ng f orhi m . The bi gge st om iss ion w as to disdai n an i nter vi ew of a w i tness w ho c ou nsel kn ew ( or shou ld h ave kn ow n) to hav e ex cu lpato ry i nform at ion . C ou n se l w as n otsa vin g t im e o n int e r v i ew s in ord er to d o som eth ing bett er. T o th e con trary. S tan ley’s l awy er di d no t pr epa r e f o r tr i al ; he j us t sh o wed up and w i nged i t. That’s i neffecti ve ass i sta nce, wh en i nfo rm ati o n in c o uns el ’ s po ss es si o n s ug g ested thats o m e po te nti alwitnesse s had excul pator y info rm ati on. H er e, by contr a s t, ( a ) I nma n did co nsi derabl e pr epara ti on bef or e t ri al ; and ( b) I nm an had i n hi s han d s a n i nter vi ew of D efor d i m ply i ng tha t Def or d did not posse ss excul pator y e vi dence. Our situati on i s a co nsi derabl e di sta nce f r o m Sta nley on th e d im en sions th at m atter.N o. 06

- 3271 15 U nl ess co unselneve r can r ely o n sta tem ents tak en by the pol i ce, a sta te cour t does not act unreas onabl y w hen hol ding that choi ces such as In m an ’s f al l sho rto fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce. Because the Suprem e Court has no t e stabl i sh ed su cha per se rul e w e do not have a si ngl e “ eg regi ous” om i ssi on t hat s poi l s what w as othe rwis e a co m petent defe nse. Giv en the st ate co urt’s fi nd i ngs o ff act, an d th e c on t e x t o f th e c om p let e w or k In m an d id for h is c l i e nt, the s t a t e j ud i c i a r y ’ s de c i s i on s c a nn o tb e s e ta s i de un d er the sta nd ard of §225 4(d ). A FFI RMED

3- 4- 09