## 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. 10

- 2467 W IL LI E M ARS HALL T HOMPK I NS, J R ., P et it ioner-App el lant, v. R AN D Y P FI S TER, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C6252

— George W. Lindberg, Judge .
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 1, 2011

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 23, 2012

Befo re B AUER, F LA UM, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . On Dec embe r 23 , 19 80 , a pat r o l l i ng po l i ce o ffi ce rf o und the b o dy o fGe r al d Hol to n l y i ng f acedown i n a di tch in an uni ncor pora te d ar ea ofCook County, Il l i noi s. H ol ton’ s hands were ti ed w i th te l ephone cor d, and he w as shot i n the head. The o ffi cer disc ove re d the bo dy ofA rthur S hepp ar d nearb y, hi dd en i n a c l ump o ft r e e s , s i mi l a r l y e xe c ut e d wi th hi s h a nd s bo und. F o rabo utthr ee months , i nv es ti g ator s ha d no2 N o. 10

- 2467 l ea ds i n the murde r s. A b reakc ame whe n a n inf o r m an t i m p lica te d P am ela T h om p kin s in th e k illing s. P am ela Thom pki ns was ar re ste d and im m edi ate l y c onfess ed h er role in a ss ist in g h er form e r b r o th er -in -law an d th eir m utua lfr i en d i n a r o bb ery tha t g ot ou t o fha nd a nd bec am e a dou ble m urd er. The pol i ce then ar re ste d Pam el a’ s for m erbr othe r- i n-l aw W i l l i e T hom pki ns, J r. , and he t oo ag re ed to ta l k a fter re cei vi ng M i r and a war ni ng s. At s o m e po i ntdur i ngthe i nter ro gat i on, he too k a phone cal l fro m an at torney w ho had bee n c on tacted by hi s wife, but continued to ta lk to p o l i c e w ith ou t in vo kin g h is rig h t t o c ou n se l. The next m or ni ng T h om p ki ns was tak en to co urt f or a bo nd he ar i ng . Be f o r e th e h ea r i ngt o o kpl ac e, he c o nfe s s e d h i s i n v o l v e me n t i n th e mu r d e r s o f Ho l t o n a nd Sheppard. A j ury con vi cted hi m o ftwo co unts o f m urder base d on hi s c onfess i on, the tes ti m ony ofey ew i tness es, and evi dence fro m the sc en e o fthe cri m e. H e was se ntenced to death. A fteran uns u c c essful dir ect appeal and m or e than a decade and a half of st ate p os t c on vic tio n p ro c ee d in gs , th e G ov er n or of Illin ois co m m ut ed th e se nt en ce s o fa ll de ath- r o w i nm at es , a nd Thom pki ns was re sente nced to life. H e e xhausted hi s r emai ni ngpo st co nv i ct i o n c l ai m s a nd the n s o ug ht federa lhabea s r el i efo n m ult i ple gr ounds. T h e d i str i ct co ur t den i ed th e pet i ti o n. W e a uthor i zed an a pp ealo n two i ssue s: ( 1) wh ether Thom pki ns’ s con fess i on s houl d have be en suppress ed b e c a us e i twa s t a k e n i n v i ol ati on o fh i s S i xth Am e nd

m ent r i ght t o c ou n se l ; and ( 2) wh ethertr i alco unselwasN o. 10

- 2467 3 const i tuti onal l y ineffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to i nter vi ew se ve r al po te nt i al wi tn es se s. On th e fi r st i ss ue , the I l l i noi s S up re m e C ou rt hel d that the r i ght t o counsel had not y et att ached w hen Thom p kin s co nfe sse d, so the tr i al cour t proper l y decl i ned to supp re ss th e c onfessio n . O n th e secon d , the cou rt rej ecte d the claim of ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco u nselbas ed on pro cedural defa ultand la c k o ff actualsupport. On federa lhabea s review , thes e d ecisions are en titl ed to su bsta nt ialde ference. Because the s tat e s up re m e co urt did n ot unreaso n ab ly d et er m in e t h e fa c ts or u n re as on ab ly a p p ly fed er al la w , see 28 U
. S. C . § 22 54( d), we affi rm the denia l of habea s reli ef.

I . B a c kg r o und T h om p kin s’s ca s e w a s t rie d in C oo k C ou n ty C irc u it C ourtm or e than thr ee decades ag o i n J une 198 2. Se e Peop l e v. Thom pki ns ( Tho m pk ins I ), 52 1 N .E .2d 38 , 42-4 5 (Ill. 19 88 ) (d i re c t a p p ea l); Peop l ev. Thom pki ns ( Thom pkins II ), 641 N
. E.2 d 371, 374- 76 ( I l l

. 19 94) ( fi rs t pos tco nvi cti on ap p eal). T h e key w itness es for th e pros ecu tion w ere K ei th Cu lbre ath and S andra Dougl as. Ou r acco un t of the f acts i s ba sed pri m arily on thei r tes ti m ony as d es c rib ed in t h e Illin o is Su p re m e C ou rt ’s o p in ion s in Thom pkins I a nd Thom pkins II
. O n D ec em b er 22 , 19 80 , W illie T h om p kin s a n d R o n n ie M oo re were at Dougl as’ s ho m e in H ar vey, I l l i noi s, in so u th e r n C oo k C ou n ty , ha tc h in g a p lan to rob a c ou p le o fc o ca i ne de al er s. Culbr ea th sto pped bya r o und n o o n. Tho m pk i ns t o o khi m into a b edr o o m a nd a sk ed i fhe4 N o. 10

- 2467

wa nt e d t o ma k e s o me mon e y by h e l pi ngh i m “ s t i c k

- up ” a “ c ou p l e g u ys .” H e a gr ee d to p ar tic ip at e b u t t old Thom pki ns he w anted to go hom e fi rs t a nd ge t a sk i m as k s o h e c ou ld n ’t b e id en tif i e d . T h om p kin s t old h i m , “ d o n ’t w or ry ab ou t it, [I ’ll] ta ke ca re of th at .” Culbr ea ths aw t wo guns o n the b ed , got c o l d fee t, a nd l eft Dougl as’ s ho use. Laterthat day, Thom pki ns, M oo re , and Dougl as drove to th e h om e o f T h om p kin s’s fo rm er sis te r-in -law P am ela T h om p kin s (“ P am ela ”). P am ela arr an ge d for G er ald H o l to n a nd Ar thurS he ppar d to c o m e o ve ro n the pr et en se o fdo i nga c o ca i ne de al

. W he n Hol to n a nd S he ppar d a r r i ve d, the g r o up mov ed to the b as ement w here ther e was a sm al lki tchen a n d r ecreat i on a re a. H o l to n a nd S he ppar d pr o duced a ba g g i e o fc o ca i ne and place d i t o n the ki tchen t abl e. Thom pki ns the n st o o d i n the do o rfr ame, po i nt ed a g un atthe t wo men, and dem anded thattheyput thei r hand s o n the tabl e. The y di d a s th eywer e to l d. M oore a nd Th o m pk i ns th en se ar c h ed H olt on an d Sh ep p ar d , tak in g a gu n, th eir wal l et s, a nd a b ee per . M o o r e an d T hom p k i ns b o und the ho sta ges ’ hands w i th te l ep h on e cor d and d ra gge d them bythei r feetfro m the ki tchen t o the r ecr eat ion ar ea. Dougl as re tr eat ed upstai rs . A few h ou rs passe d. A t s om e point Pam el a j oi ned Dougl as up sta i rs . W hi l e the two wom en w er e t al ki ng, Dougl as heard a l oud bangi ng so und i n the base m ent, f oll ow ed b y two guns ho ts
. Pa m el a bl ur te d o uttha t sh e “to l d them notto do i t he re, she knew itwouldn’tgo a c c o r d i n gt o p l a n s . ” D o u g l a s v e n t u r e d p a r t wa y d o wnN o. 10

- 2467 5 the s tai rs and go t a gl i m pse o f a b ody s he as sum ed was Hol ton ’s b ec au se s he r ec o g ni ze d hi s sh o es . S he th en saw M oore, hold in g a knife, l ead Shep p ard

— al i ve butst i l lb o und

— i n the di r ec ti o n o fthe g ar ag e. S he wat ch ed as th e o th er s dr ag g ed H o l to n’ s bo dy to the ga ra ge . Th om p kin s, M oo r e, an d P am ela th en d ro ve off in tw o se par at e ca r s, wi thS he ppar d a s th ei rho st ag e an d H ol ton’ s bod y in the tr unk ofo ne o fthe car s. Dougl as e s t i ma t e d th a tth i s t o o kp l a c e a ta r o u n d 8 o r9 p . m. Abou t 35 min ut es l at er, Do ug l as r ec ei ve d a pho ne c all fro m Thom pki ns te l l i ng herto “cl ean up a l i ttl e bi t” i n the base m ent. S he was so r epuls ed b y the s cene that sh e co ul dn’ t do i t. The ne xtda y, ho wev er, she went w i th Pam el a and Thom pki ns to the hom e ofD elm ar W at k i ns . Tho m pk i ns o r der ed Dou g l as to hel p W at k i ns w ash the blood from the tr u n k o f th e car w he re H ol ton’ s body had b een. The f ol l owing day, Dougl as st o o d g ua r d whi l e W at kins spr ay ed th e trunko fthe car w ith w ater. I n the m eanti m e o n Decem ber23 , a patro lo ffi cer f o un d the b o di e s o fHo l t o n a nd Shepp a r d, h a nd s b o u n d s a n d sh otin t h e h ea d , lyin g a b ou t 6 5 fe etap ar t in a n u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a r e a o fC o o kC o u n t y n e a rMa r k h a m, Illino is. Inv es tig at or s in itia lly h ad n o lea d s . A b re ak in th e i nvest i gat i on cam e on M ar ch 13, 1981 , w hen D or is F er gu sont o l d the po l i ce abo uta De ce m be r2 3 pho ne cal lshe re cei ved fro m Pam el a Thom pki ns as ki ng f or advi ce about how to r em ove bl oo dstai ns fro m herbas em ent and gar age . W hen Fe rguson pre sse d fo r an expl anati o n o fh o w the b l o o ds t a i ns g o tthe r e , P a mel a s pil l ed6 N o. 10

- 2467 the e nti re st or y. Pol i c e u sed Fe rguson’ s s tat em ent t o o bt ain a s ea r chw arran t f o rPa m el a’ s ho m e. At the sc en e th e o ffi ce r s sa w bl o o dst ains i n the b as ement and ar re ste d Pam el a, wh o gave a detai l ed confess i on des cr ibingthe e nt i r e se que nc e o fe ve nt s, i nc l udi ng W i l l i e Thom pki ns’ s invol vem ent in the m urders

. Bas ed o n P amel a’ s st at ement, po l i ce a r r es te d Tho m pk i ns on M arch 1 7, 1 9 8 1. T ha t sam e d ay, a com p lai nt f or a prel i m i naryexam i nati on was fi l ed aga i nst hi m . Late th at afternoon, A ssis tant St ate s Attor ney Pa ul Perry m et w i th T h o mp k i n s , g a v e h i m M ira nd a w ar n in gs , an d as ke d if he was w i l l i ng to ta l k. Thom pki ns sa i d he und er sto od hi s r i g ht s an d a g r ee d t o t al kt o P err y . At s o m e po i nt du r i ngthe i nt e r r o g a t i o n, a n o ffi c e ri nt e r r up t e d t o sa y that A tto rneyGeor ge H oward h ad c al l ed ask i ng to spe akt o Tho m pk i ns . Pe rry st o pped th e i nt er vi ew a nd T h om p kin s le ft t h e ro om to ret u rn t h e a tt or n ey ’s c all. Thom pki ns’ s wife, Barba ra , had co ntacte d H oward to as kf or h is he l p, b utHowar d l at ert es ti fi ed th athe wa s n e v e ra c t ua l l y r e t a i ne d. Wh e n T h o mp k i n s r e t u r n e d t o th e i nt e r v i e w r o o m, Perry as ke d him i fhe “ sti l lwant[ed] to ta l k t o us after ta l k i ngt o Ge o r g e H o war d?” Tho m pk i ns sai d tha t he did. Per ryr em i nd ed hi m o f h is r i ght t o have an at torney prese nt duri ng the i nter vi ew . Thom pki ns rep l i ed: “N o, that’ s a l lr i ght; I’ll talkto yo u now . ” The inter vi ew r esu m ed , bu t T h o m p kins d id n ot m ake an y i nc ulp atory sta tem ents on M ar ch 17. The ne xtmor ni ng, M ar ch1 8, the po l i ce t o o kTho m pk i ns to c o ur t f o ra b o nd he ar i nga nd p laced hi m i n a l o ckupN o. 10

- 2467 7

ne a rthe c o ur t r o o m whe r e the hea r i ngwo ul d b e h e l d. T ho m pk i ns a nd Pa m el a wer e to a ppea ri n c o ur t atthe sa m e ti m e. The pr es i d i ngj udg e ca l l ed an d pa ss ed th e case twice , apparent l y a w ai ti n g th e ar ri valo fa pri vate att or ney forThom pki ns; Pam el a w as r epres ented bya publ i c defen der

. On th e th i r d g o - r o und, Thom p kins conse nted to r epres entat i on byPam ela’s publi c defender for th e lim ite d p u rp os e o f th e b on d h ea rin g . O n th is unde r st an di ng, th e j udg e wenta he ad wi ththe he ar i ng that day, tho ugh th e evidence confl i cts about w hether i t to o kpl ac e i n the l at e m o r ni ngo re ar l y a fte r no o n. At s o m e po i ntdu r i ngthe mor ni ngc o ur t se ss i o n, Invest i gat or s J i m H oul i han and Ro n ald Bennett consul ted w i th A SA Perr y about w hethertheyco uld inter view Thom pkin s. Perry a uthor i zed the i nter ro gat i on. A fter fr es h M i r anda war ni ng s, T ho m pk i ns c o nfes se d hi s i nvol vem ent in the m urders . H e a gr eed to r epeat hi s s tat em ent t o Perry, so H oul i han l eft the l ockup to sum m on the pr ose cutor
. Thom pki ns m ai ntai ns i n hi s habe as pe t i ti on tha tthe i nt e r r o g a t i o n o c c ur r e d a fterthe b o nd hear ing. H owever, Per ryte sti fi ed at the s up press i on he ar i ngtha t he s aw the i nv es ti g ators en te rthe l o ckup so m et i m e be twe en1 1: 30 a . m . a nd 1 p. m . , b efo r e th e b on d h ea rin g w as h eld

. See Tho m pk ins I, 521 N .E .2d a t 5 0. I t is undi spu te d tha t when Pe r r y c ame b ac kt o the l o c k up , T ho mpk i ns wa s r e t urningfr o m a s e pa ra te hol ding ar ea w here i nm ate s co uld m ake p h one cal l s. T h o m p kin s t old P er ry th at h e h ad “jus t s p ok e[n ] to h is l aw yero n the phone” and no l onge r w anted to ta l k. Bec au se Pa m el a’ s co nfes si o n c o nt aine d de ta i l s about Thom pki ns’ s invol vem ent i n the m urders , the tw o de-8 N o. 10

- 2467

P am ela T ho m p k ins w as co nv icted of con sp iracy to co m m it 1 m ur der a nd ar m ed r obbe ry i n a be nc h t ri al i n whi c h the p arties stip u lated tha t she p articip ated in the crim es b eca u se W il li e Thom pk ins and R onnie M oore threa te n ed to kil l her and h erc hi l dre n. Sh e was s en t en c ed t o f our ye ars in pri s on. M oor e re m ai ned atl ar ge unt i l 19 84 an d was e ven t ual l y c onvict ed of m urd er and rel ated offense s and s ente nced to l ife. H e also so u g ht su p p ression on Fifth A m en d m en t gro u nd s, 2 all eging a viol ati on of his ri ghts und er M i r a nda v. Ariz o na , 384 U .S. 436 ( 19 66 ). O u r certificate ofa p p eala b ility co v ers on ly the Si xt h Am en dm en tc hal l en ge t o the adm i s s i on ofhi s c onfes s i on. fendants were tr i ed separ ate l y. Thom pki ns m ove d 1 to supp re ss hi s confess i on, ar gui ng that i t w as tak en in vio lat ion of h is Six th A m en d m en t rig h t t o c ou n se l. 2 I nv es ti g at o r s H ou li han a nd Be nne tt, ASA Pe r r y, a nd Att o r ne y Howar d t esti fi ed atthe s uppr es si o n h ea r i ng for th e p r o s ec u tio n, an d T h om p kin s t es tifie d on h is o wn be ha l f

. The t r i alj udg e den i ed th e m o ti o n. Thom pki ns was con victed by a j ury oftwo co unts o fmurde ra nd r elat ed ch ar g es b as ed l ar g ely o n h i s co nfes si o n a nd t es ti m o ny fr o m Do ug l as a nd Culbr ea th, cor robor ate d by e vidence obtained i n the sea rch of Pa m e l a ’ s h o me . T h e c a p i t a l

- p u n i s h me n tp h a s e o ft he case w as tri ed to the cour t, and Thom pki ns was se nt en ce d t o de ath. On d i re ct a pp ealthe I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t a ffi rm ed th e con vic tio n s a n d se n te n c e, see Tho m pk ins I, 521 N
. E.2 d at 6 3, and exte nsi ve postco n vic tio n proc eedi ngs f ol l owed

. The st ate supre m e co urt rej ecte d m osto fN o. 10

- 2467 9 Thom pki ns’ s pos tco nvi ctio n cl ai m s, but or dered a new s e n te n c in g h ea rin g. SeeTh om pkins II , 6 4 1 N. E. 2 d a t3 95. The t r i alc o ur t r eimpos ed th e dea ths en te nc e, a nd the case r etur ned to the s tat e s up re m e co urt, w h i ch twice r emande d f o rfur th erpr o ce eding s re g ar di ngthe s en te n c e. Se ePe opl ev. Thom pki ns ( Thom pkins III ) , 6 90 N
. E.2 d 984 ( I l l

. 199 8); P eop le v. Tho m pk ins ( Thom pkins I V ), 732 N
. E
. 2d 553 (I ll

. 2000). Befo r e th e r emand pr o ce eding s o r der ed i n Thom pkins I V w er e co ncl ud ed, the Gover noro f Ill i noi s co m m uted th e s en t e n c e s o fa l lp r i s o n e r s o n d e a th r o w, a nd Thom pki ns was re sente nced to tw o concurr ent t er m s o f l i fe i n pr i so n. Af te re xha us tinghi s r emai ni ngs en te nc in g c laim s in th e s ta te co u rt s, s e ePe opl ev. Thom pki ns ( Th o m pk ins V ), 87 6 N
. E. 2d 10 88 ( I l l

. 2 00 7) , Tho m pk i ns ti m el y pet i ti oned f orfedera lhabea s r el i efunder § 2254 all eging m ultiple groun d s for relie f. Th e d istri ct cou rt de ni e d the p e t i t i o n, a nd thi s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on Feder alhabea s relieffro m a sta te- cour t cr i m i nalj ud gm ent “ i s no t e asyto co m e by, ” Wood s v. M cBr i de, 430 F. 3d 813, 81 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , bec ause the Antit er ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct of19 96 ( “A ED PA ”) re quir es us t o “d efe r to a g re at extent to the deci si ons of the state co urts , ” Ben

- Yis r ayl v. B uss , 54 0 F
. 3d 542, 54 6 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ). A fed er al c ou rtm ay n otg r a n t a w rit of h ab ea s c or p u s un les s th e c h alle n ge d st at e-c ou rtad j u d icati on “res ult ed i n a deci si on that was co ntra ryto , o r10 N o. 10

- 2467 i nvol ved an unre aso nabl e a pp licati on o f, cl ear l y e stabli sh ed Fed eral l aw , as de term ined by the Sup re m e C ou rt of th e U n ite d Sta te s,” or w as ba se d on “a n u n re as on ab le deter m inati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evi dence pr es en te d i n the S ta te c o ur t pr o ce eding . ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2254 ( d)( 1), (d )(2)
. A ccor dingl y, we w i l lnotdi sturb a sta te cour t’ s a pp li cati on o ffedera ll aw “unl ess i t i s ‘ both i ncor re ct a nd un re aso nabl e. ’ ” Cart e rv. Thom ps on , 690 F. 3d 837, 843 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( quoti ng E therly v. D a vis, 61 9 F .3 d 6 54 , 660 (7t h C ir. 20 10 )). “U n re as on ab le” in t h is co nt ex t “ ‘ m ea ns s o m ethi ngl i k e l y i ngwel lo ut si de th e boundari es ofper m i ssibl e di ffer ences ofo pini on .’ ” West v. Sy m don , 68 9 F
. 3d 74 9, 7 51 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2) ( qu oting Har da w a y v. Young, 30 2 F
. 3d 75 7, 7 62 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) )
. The sta te cour t’s f actualdeter m i nati ons ar e e nti tl ed to a pr es um pti o n o fc o r r ec tn es s, a nd th e pe ti ti o ne rha s th e bur deno fo ve r co m i ngthi s pr es um pti o n b y c l ea ra nd c on vin c in g e vid en c e. See 28 U
. S
. C. § 2 25 4( e) (1); M cC a rthy v. P o lla rd, 656 F.3d 478, 483 (7th Cir. 2011). W e r evi ew the dis tr i ct court ’ s d eni alof a § 22 54 peti ti on d e n ov o. E be rtv. Ga etz , 610 F.3d 404, 411 (7th Cir. 2010). Ou r re vi ew i s l i m i ted to two questi ons on wh i ch w e g ra nted a c er tific ate o fappeal abi l i ty: ( 1) wh ether Th om p kins’ s co nfe ssi on was ob tained i n vi ol ati on o f h is Six th A m en d m en t rig h t t o c ou n se l an d th u s s h ou ld ha ve bee n su p p ressed ; and ( 2) w h e t h er tri al coun sel’s f ai l ure to i nter vi ew and pr ese nt the tes ti m ony of s eve ra l p oten tial w itness es am ou nt ed to const itutiona ll y i ne ffective assistan ce of coun sel. Th e state su p rem e cou rt dec ided th e fi r sti ss ue i n Tho m pk ins Iand decl i ned to r ev i si t th i s r ul i ngi n Thom p k ins II
. The co urt deci dedN o. 10

- 2467 11 th e se co nd i ss ue i n Tho mpki n s II, th e fi r sto fthe postco nvi cti on a pp eal s. Th om pkins III , IV , a nd V w ere l ate r postco nvi cti on app eal s o n sent enci ng i ssues not re l evanther e.

A . Thom pk i ns’s Confess i on I ti s we l l

- e s t ab l i s h e d th a tth e S i x th Ame n d me n tr i g ht ofan a ccused pers on “ to have the Assi sta nce o fCounsel for his d efenc e,” U
. S. C O NST . am end. VI, at taches at
“ the i ni t i a t i o n o fa dv e rs a r y j ud i c i a lc r i mi na lp r o c e e di ngs

— w he t h e r by w ay of form al charge, prelim inary hear i ng, i nd i ctm ent, i nfo rm ati on, o r ar ra ignm ent, ” K ir by v. Il li nois , 40 6 U.S
. 68 2, 68 9 ( 1972 )
. I t i s l i kewis e s ett l ed law th at an ap p ea ra n c e b efo re a j u d icia l offic er in w hi ch the accused i s a dvis ed ofthe charg es aga i nst h im co n st itu te s th e in itia tio n o f “ ad ve rs ar y j u d icia l crim in al p ro c ee d in gs ” fo r Six th A m en d m en t p u rp os es . See R o thg ery v . Gill espie C o un ty, Tex . , 554 U.S
. 19 1, 19 8- 99 (20 08 ); B r e w e rv . Wi l l i a ms , 430 U
. S. 38 7, 39 9 (19 77)
. Ever yone agr ees thatThom pki ns’ s bo nd hear i ng o n M ar ch 18, 1981

— the day aft er hi s a rr est

— quali fi es as the “ i ni ti ati on of advers ar y j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs” aga i nst hi m f or S i xth Am en dm en t pur po se s. Onc e the S i xth Am en dm en t ri ght t o counselhas att ached, go vernm ent a gents m ay no t que st i o n a n a cc us ed wi th o uthi s co uns elpr es en t u n les s h e c on se n ts to be qu es tio n ed w ith ou t h is c ou n se l. Se eM ont e

j o v. Lo ui s i ana , 556 U
. S. 778, 786 (2009 ). I n Th om pkins I the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t hel d that Thom p kins’s ri ght t o counselhad not yetat tached at12 N o. 10

- 2467

T he I l l i noi s Supr em e Cour t al s o rej ec t ed Thom pki ns ’ s claim 3 tha t the c onfes s i on s houl d have bee n s uppre s s ed bec aus e it w as ob tain ed in v iola tion of his Fifth A m en d m en t righ ts. Pe o pl e v. Tho mpk i ns ( Thom pkins I ), 521 N
. E.2d 38, 51- 52 ( Il l. 1988) (a ffirm in g th e t ri a l co u rt ’s ru lin g t h a t n o v io la tio n o f M i ra nda ha d occ u r r e d ). A s w e ha v e no ted , this issue is no t w ithin the s c ope ofour c er t i fi c at e ofappe al abi l i t y. the t i m e he confess ed, so the tr i alj ud ge p ro p er ly denie d the s up p re ss ion m oti on. 52 1 N
. E.2 d at 5 0- 52. In so ho l di ng, the c o urt i de nt i fi e d the c o r r e c tl e g a ls t a nd a r d, c i t i n g th e S u p r e me C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n K irby, and al so M oran v. Bur b i ne, 47 5 U .S. 41 2 (1 98 6); M ai nev. M oul t on , 474 U .S. 15 9 (1 98 5); U nite d States v. G ouveia , 467 U
. S. 1 80 (1984); a nd B rew er, 430 U
. S. at39 9 . See Th o m p k i ns I, 52 1 N
. E.2 d at5 1. The c o ur t th en r ej ec te d Tho m pk i ns ’ s ar g um en t th at th e ri g h t to co u n se l at ta c h ed im m ed iat ely aft er h is ar re st, wh en the co m pla i nt f orpre l i m i naryexam i nati on w as filed on M ar c h 17
. Id. T he co urt hel d that under Kir b y Tho m pk i ns ’ s r i g htt o c o un sel a tt ac he d a t th e bo nd hear i ng, and beca use Th om p kins confess ed to H oul i han and Benn ett bef

o rethe hear i ng was hel d, hi s co nfe ssi on w as p ro p er ly a d m itt ed ag a i n s t h im attria l. Id. The 3 co ur t dec l i ne d t o r ev i si t th i s r ul i ngi n Thom pkins II, t h e fir st p os tc on vic tio n ap p ea l, b ec au se th e a ffid av it Thom pki ns subm i tte d i n supp or t o fhi s pos tco nvi ctio n m oti on co ntra dict ed hi s te sti m ony at the s up press i on hear i ng. 64 1 N
. E.2 d at 3 84. Thom pki ns no l onge r ar gues, as he di d i n the sta tecour t pr oce edi ngs, thathi s S i xth A m endm ent ri ght t o cou ns el attach e d w he n th e com p lai nt f or a prelim inaryN o. 10

- 2467 13

exam i nati on was fi l ed. The co ncessi on is prudent. Un d e rI l l i n o i s l a w a c o mp l a i n tf o ra p r e l i mi n a r y e x a min at ion d oe s n o t in itia te form al fe lon y p ro c ee d in gs . See 725 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 11 1- 2( a) ( “Al lpr o se cut i o ns of felonies sha llbe by inform ation or by ind ictm e n t .”); P eoplev. Ga rret t, 6 88 N. E. 2d 61 4, 6 18

- 19 ( I l l

. 1 99 7) ( ho l di ng that a c om p lai nt f orpre l i m i naryexam i nati on i s no t a for m al c h ar ge in a felon y c as e); Peop l ev. M ann , 794 N
. E.2 d 425, 43 1- 32 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 03) ( obs er ving that “ a com pla i nt al l eging a fel ony i ni ti ate s no pro secuti on w hatso eve r” )
. Ind eed, the Su p rem e Cour t has not ed that i n I l l i no i s i t i s th e pr el i m i na r y he ar i ngi tsel f, no t th e fi l i ng o fa com pla i nt f orpre l i m i naryexam in at i on, that i ni ti ate s a dversaryj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs in fel ony case s. SeeM oore v. Ill inois , 43 4 U. S
. 2 20 , 2 28

- 29 ( 19 77 ) ( no ting that und erI l l i noi s l aw adver sar y fel ony p ro c eedi ngs ar e in iti ate d not a t the ti m e a co m pla i nt i s fi l ed but a t th e s u b se q u en t p re lim in ar y h ea rin g); Ed wa r d s v . A r iz o na , 451 U
. S. 47 7, 48 0 n . 7 ( 1981 ) ( re peati ng thi s obser vati on fr o m M o o re ). Acce ptingthe errori n h i s pr i o ra r g um en t, Tho m pk i ns ha s sh ifted focus an d now atta cks the stat e c ou rt’s fin d in g t h a t h e c on fes se d be for e t h e b on d h ea rin g. See Tho m pk ins I, 521 N
. E.2 d a t 50 ( describi ng th e chrono l ogy ofev ents and find i ng tha t the co nfe ssi on was gi ven
“ i mme d i a t e l y p r i o rt o d e fe n d a n t ’ s b o n d h e a r i n g ” )
. He ar gues that th e evi dence “pl ai nl y dem onst ra tes ” that Ho u l i h a n a n d B e n n e t tqu e s t i o n e d h i m a fter th e bo nd h ea rin g. T h is is a n ew fac tu al c laim , an d it is ar gu ab ly proce du ra l l y defa ult ed beca use Thom pki ns di d not a d e q u at ely d ev elo p it inth e s ta te co u rt
. SeeSuh v. Pier ce,14 N o. 10

- 2467 6 3 0 F .3 d 68 5, 69 0 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); St e ve ns v. M cBr i de, 489 F. 3d 88 3, 89 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. On dir ect appeal he a rgued th athi s r i g htt o co uns ela tt ac he d whenthe c o m pl aint w as fi l ed on M ar ch 17 and that he d id n ot val i dlywaive h is rig h t t o c ou n se l aft er th at p oin t. See Tho m pk ins I, 521 N
. E.2 d at 5 0- 52. Later, i n postco nvi cti on pro ceedi ngs, he subm i tte d an affi davi t cl ai m i ng tha t the pol i ce re fused hi s r equest to cal lA tto rneyH oward, wh i ch contr adic ted hi s t est i m ony at the s up press i on hea ring. SeeTh om pkins II

, 6 41 N. E.2d at 38 4. He fi r str ai se d the cl ai m abo utthe c hr o no l o g y o fe ve nt s i n h i s § 22 54 pe ti ti o n. Pr o c e du r a lde f a ul ta s i de , the s t a t e co ur t ’ s f a c t ua lfi nd

i ng s ar e ent itl ed to a pr es um pti o n o fc o r r ec tn es s, a nd Th o m pki ns h a s the b ur de n t o o v e r c o me the p r e s umpti o n b y c l ea ra nd c o nv i nc i nge vi den ce . He h as no t d o ne so. I t i s true tha t th e r ec o r d do es no t es tabl i shthe pr e c i s e t i me the b o nd h e a r i ngo c c ur r e d. The t r a ns c r i pt fr o m the he ar i ngdo es no t i ndicate when th e he ar i ng st ar te d a nd ende d, a l th o ug h a t se ve r alpo i nt s th e pr es i di ngj udg e sa i d “ th i s m o r ni ng ” when r efer r i ng to the w ar ni ngs he was t h en pro vi ding to both defe nd ants. Thom pki ns te sti fi ed at the s up press ion h ear i ng tha t H o ul i ha n a nd Be nne ttque st i o ne d hi m i n the a fte r no o n. On the other hand , A SA Perr y test i fi ed that H oul i han and B en n etti nter vi ew ed Thom pki ns befo rethe b o nd hear i ng, and al though h e c oul d not s ay preci sel y what ti m e the i nter vi ew o ccurr ed, he e sti m ate d t h at h e saw the invest i gat or s e nterthe l ockup so m eti m e be tw een 11 : 30 a . m . a nd 1 p. m . Ba se d o n P er r y’s t es ti m o ny, the sta te suprem e co urt f ound th at T hom pki ns co nfe sse d “i m m edi ate l y pr i orto [ the] bo nd hear i ng. ” Tho m pk ins I, 521 N
. E.2 d at 5 0.N o. 10

- 2467 15 I n evi denti ar y c onfl i cts like thi s, o ur s tandard o f r e v i e w r e qu i r e s th a tw e d e fe rt o th e s t a t e s u p r e me c o ur t ’ s de c i si on . T he s t a t e c o ur twa s e nt i t l e d t o a c c e pt Perry’ s t est i m ony about the c h ro n ol ogyo fev ents. Thom pki ns has not re butted the A ED PA pre sum pti on that the s tat e co urt’ s fac t-find i ng i s co rr ect; he ha s si m pl y po i nt ed to e vi den ce su p po r tinghi s ve r si o n o fthe sequence and ti m i ng o fev ents. N orhas he car ri ed his bu rd en of d em ons trating th at th e state cou rt’s d eterm i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts was unr ea so nabl e; i den ti fy i ng co nfl i ct i ngevide nc e i s no t en o ug h. Acco r di ng l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t pr o per l y de ni ed habe as r el i efo n the S i x th A me n d me n tr i g h t
- t o - c o u n s e lc l a i m.
B. I neff ect i ve A ssi st ance ofCoun sel Thom pki ns al so c onte nd s that hi s t ri alco unselwas const i tuti onall y ineffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to i nter vi ew seve ral w itness es w ho cou ld hav e offered exc ulp atory te st im on y . U n d er th e fa m iliar t es t e st ab lish ed in St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , a cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce of coun sel r e q u ir es a sho w ing tha t cou ns el “m ad e errors so s e r i o u s th a tc o u n s e lwa s n o tfu n c t i o n i n ga s th e ‘ c o uns e l ’ g ua r a nt e e d the de fe nd a ntb y the Si xth Am e nd

m ent” and that the “defi ci ent per f or m ance pr ej ud i ced th e defen se . ” 46 6 U. S
. 6 69 , 6 87( 19 84 )
. J ud ici als cr ut i ny of c ounsel ’ s per f or m ance i s “ hi ghl y defer enti al, ” id. at 689, and un d er A E D PA w e d efer to the s t ate cou rt’s ap p li cation of St r i ck l and o n fe d e r a l h ab e a s r ev i e w, m eani ng tha t o ur e val uati on o fco unsel ’ s per f or m ance i s “ doub ly defe re nti al, ” K now le s v. M irzay ance, 12 9 S
. Ct. 1411 , 1420 (2009).16 N o. 10

- 2467 Thom pki ns’ s St r i ck l andcl ai m r est s o n an al l ege d f ailure t o i nvest i gat e pot enti alwitnes ses . Tri alco unsel “has a duty t o m ake r eas onabl e in vesti gat i ons orto m ake a re aso nabl e deci si on that m ake s par ti cul ar i nvest i gat i ons unnecessary. ” St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. a t 691. “I n any i neffecti ve ness case , a parti cul ardeci si on not to i nv es ti g at e m us t be di r ec tly a ss es se d f o rr ea so nabl eness i n al lthe ci rcum sta nces, apply i ng a h eavy m easure o fd efer ence to counsel ’ s j ud gm ents. ” Id. Tho m pk i ns ar gues that hi s t ri alco unselsho uld have i nter vi ew ed an d p r e s e n te d te st im on y fro m h is w ife, B arb ar a, as w ell a s Ka r e n Ha y e s a nd Tina Pi tts

— al lo fwh om , he s ays , w oul d have pro vi ded an al ibi

. H e a l so cl ai m s hi s co unsel w as i neffecti ve f ornoti nter vi ew i ng Pam el a Thom pki ns. Re g a r di ngthe c l a i med a l ib i, T ho mpki ns c o nt e nd s th at H aye s a nd Pi tts would have tes ti fi ed that he was wi th th em dur i ng th e day o n Dec embe r 22, contr adi ct i ng th e t es tim on y of D ou gla s a n d C u lbr ea th . H e s ay s h is wi fe , B a r b a r a , wo u l d h a v e t e s t i fi e d th a th e w a s h o me w i th herat9 p. m . o n Decem ber22 , ar ou n d the t i m e o f th e m u rd er s. Iti s n otcle ar w h at te st im on y P am ela w oul d hav e provi ded beyo nd w hat she tol d pol ice in her detai l ed confess i on, wh i ch i nculpate d Th om pki ns. The I l l i noi s Suprem e C ourtr ej ecte d Th om pki ns’ s St r i ck

l and c l a i m a s t o Ha y e s a nd Pi t t s o n pr o c e du r al gr o un ds because he di d not s ubm i t a ffi davi ts fro m them with h i s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n, a s r e q u i r e d b y I l l i n o i s l a w. Thom pkins II

, 641 N .E .2d at37 8; see also 72 5 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5 / 12 2- 2 ( 19 64 )
. Thi s i s ani nde pen den t an d ade qua te s ta te g r o und fo rr ej ec ting th i s par t o fthe St r i ck

-N o. 10

- 2467 17

A lthoug h the Il li nois Supre m e Court has suggest ed that 4 no nc om p lian ce w ith th e affi d av it rule m igh t be f or g iv e n in ce rt a in cir cu m sta n ce s, P eoplev. R eeves , 10 7 N .E.2d 861 , 86 4 (Ill. 19 52 ), tha t d oe s no t m ean tha t the ru le is not reg u l a r ly fo llo w ed an d is th er efo re in a d eq u a te , Pr o mot o rv. Pol l ard , 628 F. 3d 878, 886- 87 ( 7th Cir

. 2010). D is cre ti onary st ate procedu ral (co n tin u ed ...) l and cl ai m , wh i ch bar s r ev iew in fe deralco urt unle ss Thom pki ns can show ca use and pr ej ud i ce or that a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce wou ld resul t i fwe do not re vi ew th e c laim

. SeeCo ne v. B el l , 556 U .S
. 449, 465-66 (2009 ); Wood s v. Schw artz , 589 F. 3d 368, 37 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) . “ A state l aw groun d i s ind ep e n d e n t w he n th e cou rt ac tu al l y r el i ed o n the pr o ce dur alb aras a n inde pen den t b asi s fori ts dispos i ti on o fthe case . ” Ka cz mare kv. Red nou r, 62 7 F
. 3d 586, 59 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. “A stat e l aw gr ou n d i s a dequ ate wh en i t i s a fi rm l y e stabl i shed an d reg u lar ly follo w ed s ta te p ra c tic e a t t h e t im e it i s a pp l i ed. ” Id. T h e sta te su p re m e cou rt p lain ly re lied on th e a f f i d av it rule to bar Th om p kins’s claim that his coun sel w as ineffec tiv e for n otint er vie w in g H ay es an d P itt s. Se eThom pki ns II , 64 1 N
. E.2 d at 3 78 ( “The defendant has f ai l ed to s u b mi ta ffi d a vi ts f r o m P i t t s a n d Ha y e s th e ms e l v e s , h o wev er, a nd thus we ar e pr ec l ude d fr o m c o ns i der i ng thi s i ssue further

. ”)
. M or eov er, the affi da vi t r ule i s e stabl i shed by sta te sta tu te , 725 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5 / 12 2- 2, a nd re gu lar ly follo w ed by Il lin ois co u rt s, s e e, e . g. , Pe opl ev. Guest, 65 5 N
. E.2 d 873, 88 3 ( I l l

. 19 95)
. Thom pki ns m ust 418 N o. 10

- 2467

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 ru l es m ay stillcon stitute in d ep en d en t an d ad equ ate state g ro u n d s. B eard v. K i n dle r, 13 0 S. C t. 6 1 2 , 61 8 (20 0 9 ). Tho m pk ins does not argue thatw ithout federal habeas 5 rev iew , he w ill s u ffer a fun d am en tal m iscarria g e of justice, s o w e do not add res s th is ground f or re li effrom the procedu ral d efau lt. th er efo r e es tabl i shc ause fo ra nd pr ej udi ce fr o m the proce du ra ldef aul t. H e has a ste ep hi l lto cl i m b: 5 C a u s e f o r a def a u l ti s o r d i n a r i l y e s t ab l i s h e d b y s h o wi ng tha t s om e type o f“ex te rnal i m pedim ent” prev e n t e d the pe t i t i o n e rfr o m p r e s e n t i n gh i s c l a i m. Lew is v. Sternes , 390 F.3d 1 0 1 9 , 1 026 (7th Cir. 2004). Prej ud i ce i s e stabl i shed by showing that the v iola ti on of th e p et itio n er ’s fe d er al rig h t s “ w or ke d to h is ac t ual an d su b st an tia l d isa d va n ta g e , in fec tin g h is enti re tri alw i th err orof const i tuti onaldi m ensi ons. ” Id. P rom o to r v. P o lla rd, 628 F.3d 878 , 887 (7th C ir. 2010). T h om p kin s ar gu es th at H ay es an d P itt s w er e im p os sib le to fin d afterthe tr i aland hi s inabi l i ty to l oca te them am ou n te d to an “e x te rn al im p ed im en t” p re ve n tin g h is com pli ance w i th the affi davi t r ule

. But the rul e r equi re s the pet i ti onerto i ncl ud e eithera ffi d avits fr o m the w i tne s s e s wh o wi l ls up po r tthe p e t i t i o ne r ’ s p o s t c o nv i cti on cl ai m s o r a s tat em ent e xplaini ng w hy affi davi ts ar e unavai l abl e. See72 5 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/ 122- 2. Thom p kins’s peti ti on f orpost convi cti on r el i efi ncl ud ed ne i th er ; he di d no t su bmi t affi dav i ts fr o m Hay es a ndN o. 10

- 2467 19 Pi tts, nordi d he expl ai n w hy affi davi ts fro m them w er e unavai l abl e. Even ass um i ng tha t Thom pki ns co uld e st ab l i sh cause f orthe proce du ra ldef aul t, he c annot est abl i sh prej ud i ce. The onl y ind i cation o f the tes ti m ony H aye s a nd Pi tts w ou ld h av e g ive n is T h om p kin s’s ow n affid av it as se rt in g t h at th ey w ou ld h av e p ro vid ed a n alib i. T h is f a l l s f a rs h o r to fe s t ab l i s h i n gp r ej u d i c e . A St r i ck l and cl ai m bas ed on co unsel ’ s f ai l ure to i nvest iga te a potenti al witnes s r equi re s a speci f i c, af firm at ive sh o wi ngo fwhatthe mis singwi tness ’ s te st i m o ny w o u l d b e, an d th is t yp ica lly re q u ire s a t le as t a n affid av it fro m th e o ve rloo ke d w itn es s. See Wrigh t v. G ram ley, 12 5 F .3d 10 38 , 104 4 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); U nite d Sta te s ex rel
. M cCal l v. O ’ Grady, 908 F.2d 170, 173 (7th Cir. 1990); U nite d States ex rel
. Cross v. D eRobert is , 811 F. 2d 1008 , 10 1 6 (7t h C ir. 19 87 ). Th om p kin s’s ow n affid av it is no t en o ug h. T hom p kins a ls o cha ll en ges th e state su p rem e cou rt’s rej ect ion o fhi s cl ai m thatco unselwas i neffecti ve f or f ai l i ngt o i nt er vi ew Pa m el a. On th i s as pec t o fthe St r i ck l and cl ai m , the sta te suprem e co urt bega n by noti ng tha t c o un s e l ha d s uc c e s s ful l y a r g ue d fo r se ve ra n c e b ec au se P am ela ’s d efe n se w as an ta g o n i st ic to Tho m pk i ns ’ s; b as ed o n the c o nt en ts o fhe rc o nfessi o n, her tes ti m ony w oul d hav e been harm ful rath er than h elp fu l to h is c as e. SeeTh om pkins II , 64 1 N
. E.2 d at 3 77- 78. The co urt eas i l y r ej ecte d Th om pki ns’ s e vi dence to the c o nt r a r y ; h e r e l i e d o n an u nauthe nt i c a t e d h a nd

w ri tte n le tte r dated J anuary26 , 19 83, i n w hi ch Pa m el a pur po r te d t o r ec an t he rs ta te m en t i m pl i ca ting20 N o. 10

- 2467 T h om p kin s in th e m u rd er s. Id. T h e c o u r t s a i d t he l ett er w as of “doubtful uti l i ty” because i t w as dated si x m onths a

fterT h om pki ns’ s t ri aland Pam el a had “r ecanted the r ecanta ti on” the v er y nex t d ay, o n J anuary27, i n a st ip u lat ion atth e b eg in n in g of h er ow n tria l. Id. U nd erthes e ci rcum sta nces, the cour t d i d “not bel i eve th at co u n se l m ay be fau lte d ” fo r failin g t o “ se ri o u sly consi der t he pr o s pe c t o f c a l l i ng Pa m el a a s a defe nse witness. ” Id. at3 77
. W e, i n tur n, c anfi nd no f au l t wi ththe s ta te c o ur t’ s dec i si o n o n this po i nt
. To th e co nt r ar y , i t was emi ne nt ly reason able, an d Thom pki ns has gi ven us no g oo d rea son to questi on i t. That br i ngs us to B ar b ar a, and w hethertr i alco unsel w as i neffecti ve f ornotcal l i ng her as an al ibiwitnes s. Tho m pk i ns c l ai m s sh e woul d ha ve t es ti fi ed th athe w as ho me wi th he rs o met i me a r o un d 9 p . m. o n Decem b er 22 , 19 80. Barba ra st ate d i n heraffi davi t that she was i nter vi ew ed by Thom pki ns ’s d efense att or ney an d to l d h i m s h e “ w as w illing to te st ify.” Sh e a lso sa id she t ol d counselthat“be cause Iwas a J eh ov ah ’s wit

ness, Ico u ld notl i e, ” a nd the i nter vi ew pro ceeded n o fu rt h er . B arb ar a e x p lain ed in h er affid av it th at th is sta tem ent w as m eant to re i nfo rce herr el i gi ous b el i ef s, n otto su gg es t t h at sh e t h o u g h t sh e “ w ou ld h av e t o lie about anythi ng to t es tify f orW i l l i e. ” S he sa i d i fco unsel h ad q u es tio n ed h er fu rt h er , sh e w ou ld h av e t o l d h im th at“ W i l l i e m us t ha ve b ee n h o m e afte r9 : 00 i n the eve ni ng on Decem ber 22, 1980 , because that w as w hen I w ou ld ge t u p from m y n ap to go t o w or k, an d W illie d ro ve m e t o w or k t h at n igh t.”N o. 10

- 2467 21 Se tting as i de the questi on o f w hethertr i alco unsel m i sint er pr et ed Barba r a’ s r efer en ce t o he rr el i g i o us be l i ef s, the stat e su pr eme c o ur t qui te r ea so nabl y c o ncl ud ed that i t “ shoul d deferto cou n se l ’ s deci si on not to pre sent [ Barbar a’ s] te sti m ony. ” Id. at37 8. H eraffi da vit m ak es it cle ar th at sh e c ou ld n otp ro vid e a cle an alib i. She cl ai m ed onl y that Thom pki n s “m ust hav e be en hom e a fter9:00 i n the eve ni ng o n Decem ber22 ” be cause that w as w hen she or dinar i l y g ot u p fr om hernap to go to w or k, and he dro ve her to w or k that e ven in g. That i s no t i nc o m pat ibl e wi thDo ug l as ’ s te st i m o ny tha t th e m u rd er s o c c u rre d aro u n d 8 or 9 p .m . B arb ar a’s affid av it w as at b est equi voca land not i nconsi ste nt with Dougl as’ s t est i m ony. I t doe s no t ca l li nto questi on th e re as on ab len es s o f th e s ta t e su p re m e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n n ot to f aul t counsel f or not prese nti ng her as a w i t n e s s . I n d e e d , St r i ck l and r e qu i r e s thi s k i nd o f defer en ce to co uns el ’ s st r at eg i c dec i si o ns . W hen co nsi dere d thro ugh the l ens o fo ur doubl y defer enti al s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w, B a rb a r a ’ s a ffi d a v i tdo e s n o tc o me cl ose t o est abl i shi ng tha t the st ate suprem e co urt unreas o nab l y a pp l i e d St r i ck l and

. A FFI RMED .

10- 23- 12