2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-10-2009 

# M arcu s D eS hield s v

. Atty Ge n P A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1995

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ar c us D eS hield s v

. Atty Ge n P

A" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1031. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1031NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 1995

_____________ M AR CU S DE S HI E L DS

v. R O B E R T S H A N N O N ; PA STATE A TTOR NEY GEN ERA L, A p p e llan ts

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 00380) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y9, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , A M B R O a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges . ( Fi l ed: J ul y10, 2009)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . M ar cus D eShi el ds w as tr i ed i n the Penns y l vani a C our tof C om m on Pl eas and convi ct ed of s ever al cr i m es , i ncl udi ng aggr avat ed as s aul t . H e w as s ent ence d t o 70 t o 1802

m o n ths in p ri so n an d , af ter ex h au sti n g h is st ate rem ed ies, fil ed a p eti ti o n fo r habeas corpu s i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that the s tat e c o u rt s h ad erro n eo u slyd en ied D eS h iel d s’s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m and i tacc or di ngl ygr ant ed hi s habea s pet i t i on. T he C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a has appea l ed. B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n , w e w ill a f f ir m . I . Backg r ound O n A ugus t12, 2001, M ar cus D eShi el ds w as pr es entw hen an a l t er cat i on and s hoot i ng occurr ed out s i de the A m er i can Legi on Post , i n Y or k, Penns y l vani a. Pol i ce arr es t ed D eShi el ds atthe s cene and, al though he w as notcarry i ng a gun and no gun w as r ecove r ed atthe s cene , he w as ul t i m at el ychar ged w i th s hoot i ng D el m as C unni ngham and f ir in g a t a p o lic e o f

f ic e r. D e S h ie ld s w a s tr ie d b e f o re a ju ry in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 . O ne of the cont es t ed i s s ues attr i al w as w hetherD eShi el ds had pos s es s ed and f i r ed a gun dur i ng the al t er cat i on. A nt oi nett e D avi s t es t i fi ed attr i al thats he s aw D eShi el ds sh o o t C u n n ing h am . Y et, o n the n igh t of the in cide n t, a p o li ce o ff icer n am ed D eh art in te rv ie w e d D a v is a n d n o te d in h is re p o rt th a t D a v is s a id s h e d id n o t s e e th e s h o o te r. D es pi t e havi ng D ehart ’ s r eport , D eShi el ds ’ s tr i al couns el di d notconfr ontD avi s w i th her p ri o r i n c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n t.A governm entw i tnes s expl ai ned thatthe gun s hotr es i due t es t s run on 1 D eS h iel d s’s h an d s an d cloth es c h ec k fo r th e p rese n ce o f a n ti m o n yan d b arium . If the re a re su f f icie n t am o u n ts o f

a n tim o n ya n d b a riu m a n d th e ra tio o f a n tim o n yto b a riu m is w i thi n an ac cept abl e r ange, the r es ul t s ar e conc l us i ve i n s how i ng the pr es ence of gun s hot re s id u e . If

a n yo f th e th re e c ri te ri a is n o t m e t, th e re s u lts a re c o n s id e re d in c o n c lu s iv e . 3 A f ter a rre stin g D e S h ield s, p o lice tes ted h is h a n d s f o r g u n sh o t re sid u e a n d se n t h is cl othes t o a l abor at oryfors i m i l art es t i ng. T he r es ul t s of both t es t s w er e i nconcl us i ve. 1 A t tri al, Jo h n E v an s, a p o li ce fo ren sic scien ti st, test ifi ed that the tests run o n D eS h iel d s’s hands w er e i nconcl us i ve and e xpl ai ned thatan i ndi vi dual can r emove gun shotr es i due fr om hi s hands byw i pi ng them on hi s cl othes . E vans al s o t es t i fi ed thathe di d nothave th e e q u ip m e n t to tes t D e S h ield s’s c lo th e s a n d d id n o t k n o w w h e th e r th e yh a d b e e n se n t to a l abor at oryfort es t i ng. D eShi el ds ’ s couns el had nots ubpoenae d any one fr om the lab o ra to ryto tes tifyth a t tes ts h a d b e e n ru n o n D e S h ield s’s c lo th e s a n d th a t th e re su lts w e re in c o n c lu s iv e , a n d th a t e v id e n c e w a s n e v e r p re s e n te d to th e ju ry. D eShi el ds ’ s couns el al s o chos e nott o cal l tw o w i tnes s es w ho w oul d have t es t i fi ed thattheyw er e w i th ornearD eShi el ds atthe t i m e of the al t er cat i on and thathe nei ther pos s es s ed norfi r ed a gun. D arr y l e B uffi ngt on w as pr epar ed t o t es t i fythathe and D eS h iel d s left th e A m erican L eg ion P o st t o g ethe r, saw the a lt erc ati o n , an d then h ea rd s h o ts . U p o n h e a ri n g th e s h o ts , th e yd ro p p e d to th e g ro u n d a n d th e n ra n f ro m th e s c e n e . A s theyw er e runni ng, the pol i ce s t opped and a rr es t ed D eShi el ds . T oni s ha Penn w as pr epar ed t o t es t i fythats he w as atthe A m er i can Legi on Postdur i ng the al t er cat i on and s aw D eShi el ds runni ng w i thouta gun as the s hot s w er e fi r ed. A l though both B uffi ngt on4

a n d P e n n w e re p re se n t at tria l an d re a d yto tes tify , D e S h ield s’s trial c o u n se l d id n o t ca ll e ith e r w itn e s s to th e s ta n d . T he j uryfound D eShi el ds gui l tyof thr ee c ount s of aggr avat ed as s aul t , one countof sim p le assa u lt , an d o n e c o u n t of rec k lesslyen d an g ering an o ther p erso n , an d the C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to 7 0 to 1 8 0 m o n th s in p riso n . D e S h ield s f iled a tim e lya p p e a l, an d h is convi ct i on w as aff

i r m ed bythe Super i orC our tof Penns y l vani a. H e then fi l ed a Pet i t i on forA l l ow ance of A ppeal w i th t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tand hi s pet i t i on w as d e n ie d . Fol l ow i ng hi s di r ectappea l s , D eShi el ds fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on forr el i ef unde r Penns y l vani a’ s Post - C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) i n the Y or k C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas . I n hi s pet i t i on, he al l eged thathi s tr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng to cro ss-ex am ine D av is on h er p ri o r i n co n sist en t st atem en t, fa il ing to ca ll an ex p ert w i tnes s t o t es t i fythatthe gun s hotr es i due t es t s run on hi s cl othes w er e i nconcl us i ve, and fai l i ng t o cal l B uffi ngt on and Penn t o t es t i fythathe di d notpos s es s orfi r e a gun. T he Co u r to f Co mm o n P l e a s h e l d a h e a r i n g o n De S h i e l d s ’ s P CR A c l a i m a n d d e n i e d i t . He appea l ed t o the Super i orC our t , w hi ch af fi r m ed the deni al . H e then fi l ed a Pet i t i on for A llo w a n c e o f

A p p e a l w ith th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt, an d th e C o u rt d e n ied h is p e titio n . A ft erexhaus t i ng hi s s t at e courtr emedi es , D eShi el ds fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on for h a b e a s c o rp u s, u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d leT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overD eShi el ds ’ s habea s pet i t i on under28 2 U . S. C . § 2254. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or derunder28 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 , 2 2 5 3 . 5 D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr eques t ed tr ans cr i pt s fr om the tr i al and the P C R A h e a rin g h e ld in th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s a n d a p p o in ted th e F e d e ra l P u b lic D efe ndert o r epr es entD eShi el ds . O n M ar ch 20, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued an or der grant i ng D eS hiel ds’s hab eas pet i t i on and orderi ng the C om m on w eal th to r el ease D e S h ield s o r re tryh im w ith in n in e tyd a y s. In its o rd e r, th e D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d its hol di ng: I n l i ghtof the s t at e courtr ecor d, w e conc l ude thatdefe ns e couns el m ade e rro rs s o se rio u s th a t co u n se l w a s n o t f u n c tio n in g a s th e “ c o u n se l” guar ant eed D eShi el ds bythe Si xth A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and thatdefe ns e couns el ’ s err or s w er e s o s er i ous as t o depr i ve D e S h ie ld s o f

a f a irtr ia l, a tr ia l w h o s e re s u lt is re lia b le . (S u p p . A p p . at 16 -17 . ) T he C om m onw eal th t i m el yappea l ed and a r gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by gr ant i ng D eShi el ds ’ s habea s pet i t i on. I I . D i s cus s i on 2 We r e v i e w de novo the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t D eS h iel d s’s p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s , s in c e th e C o u rt d id n o t c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . P r az den v. Maur er , 424 F. 3d 303, 310 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . L i ke the D i s tr i ctC our t , ouranal y s i s of6

D eS hiel ds’s hab eas pet i t i on i s gov erned b ythe st and ards s etforth in the A nti -Terr ori sm a n d E f f e c t i v e De a th P e n a l tyAc t( “ AE DP A” ) . Un d e rAE DP A: ( d) A n appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus on behal f of a p erso n in cu stod yp u rsua n t t o the ju d g m en t of a S tat e c o u rt s hal l notbe gr ant ed w i th r es pectt o anycl ai m thatw as adj udi cat ed on the mer i t s i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs unl es s the ad jud icati o n o f th e c lai m -- ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f , c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d F e d e r a l l a w, as d eterm ined b ythe S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n it ed S tat es; o r (2 ) re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in th e S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ). “A s t at e courtdeci s i on i s an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on under§ 2254( d) ( 1) i f the court‘ i dent i fi es the corr ectgoverni ng l egal rul e fr om the Supr eme C our t ’ s cas es but unr eas onabl yappl i es i tt o t he fa ct s of the part i cul arcas e ori f the s t at e courtei ther unr eas onabl yext ends a l egal pr i nci pl e fr om the Supr eme C our t ’ s pr ece dentt o a new cont extw her e i ts houl d notappl yorunr eas onabl yr efus es t o ext end thatpr i nci pl e t o a new cont extw her e i ts houl d appl y . ’ ” Jaco bs v. H orn , 395 F. 3d 92, 100 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng G at t is v. Snyder , 2 7 8 F .3 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); see al so W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 529 U . S. 362, 405- 06 ( 2000) . B eca us e the unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on s t andar d i s obj ect i ve,

“ a f e d e ra l co u rt m a yn o t g ra n t h a b e a s re lief m e re lyb e c a u se it co n c lu d e s th a t th e sta te courtappl i ed fe der al l aw err oneous l yori ncorr ect l y . ” Jacobs , 395 F. 3d at100 ( ci t i ng7

W ig g in s v . Sm ith , 539 U . S. 510, 520- 21 ( 2003) ) . R ather , a fe der al courtm ayonl ygr ant r el i ef i f “‘ the s t at e courtdeci s i on, eval uat ed obj ect i vel yand on the mer i t s , r es ul t ed i n an o u tcom e tha t can n o t r ea so n ab lyb e jus ti fied u n d er e x ist ing S u p rem e C o u rtp rec ed en t. ’” B on d v. B eard , 539 F. 3d 256, 263 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng H acke t tv. P r i ce , 381 F. 3d 281, 2 8 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . “Si xth A m endmentcl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar e governed by Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , w hi ch qual i fi es as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fede r al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ” T aylor v. H

orn , 504 F. 3d 416, 430 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . U nder Str i ckland , a pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e that“couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent ” and that “the d ef

ici en t perf

o rm an ce p rejud iced the d ef en se.” 4 6 6 U . S . at 68 7 . A n att o rne y ’s p e rf o rm a n c e is ju d g e d o n w h e th e r h e o r s h e p ro v id e d re a s o n a b ly ef f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e , id ., and fa l l s bel ow thatthr es hol d i f, “i n l i ghtof al l the ci r cumst ance s , the i dent i fi ed ac t s or om i s s i ons [of c ouns el ] w er e out s i de the w i de r ange of pr ofes s i onal l ycompet ent as s i s t ance . ” I

d. a t 6 9 0 . A d e f

e n d a n t is p re

ju d ice d b yc o u n se l’s d e f icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e if “ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ' s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t. A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyis a p ro b a b ili ty s uffi ci entt o underm i ne conf i dence i n the out come. ” I d. a t 6 9 4 . In th is case , D eS h iel d s ass erts th ree g rou n d s fo r co n clud ing that h is tri al co u n sel’s per form ance w as defi ci ent . Fi r s t , he cont ends that , aft erA nt oi nett e D avi s t es t i fi ed thatT he C om m onw eal th ar gues thatD avi s ’ s s t at ementdoes notcons t i tut e an 3 i ncons i s t ents t at ementunderPenns y l vani a l aw . H avi ng neverm ade thatar gum enti n t he D i s tr i c tC o u r t , th e C o m m o n w e a l th w a i v e d i te n t i r e l y. S e e F letc h e r-Ha rle e C o rp . v. P o te C oncr et e C ontr actors , I nc. , 482 F. 3d 247, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “[A ] bs entexce pt i onal c irc u m sta n c e s, iss u e s n o t ra ise d b e f o re th e d istric t co u rt a re w a iv e d o n a p p e a l.”). E v e n if th a t w e re n o t th e c a se , h o w e v e r, th e a rg u m e n t is u n f o u n d e d . W h ile th e C o m m o n w e a lth sa y s D a v is’s sta tem e n t d o e s n o t q u a lifya s a n in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n t u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia R ul e of Evi dence 803. 1( 1) , thatrul e addr es s es onl ythe ques t i on of w hethera pr i or stat em en t can b e a d m itted a s an ex ce p ti o n to the h ea rsayrule a n d su b stan ti v e e v iden ce . It does nots peak a tal l t o t he us e of the s t at ementas i m peac hm entevi dence , an i s s ue g o v e rn e d b yR u le s 6 1 3 a n d 6 0 7 o f th e P e n n s y lv a n ia R u le s o f E v id e n c e . 8 sh e sa w h im sh o o t C u n n in g h a m , h is c o u n se l in e x p lica b lyf a iled to c o n f

ro n t D a v is w ith herpr i ors t at ementt o O ffi cerD ehartthats he di d nots ee the s hoot er . D avi s ’ s tr i al t es t i m onyand hers t at ementt o O ffi cerD ehartdi r ect l ycontr adi cteac h otherand conc ern th e c e n tr a l is s u e in th e c a s e : w h e th e r D e S h ie ld s p o s s e s s e d a n d f ir e d a g u n . T he C ou rtof C om m on P l eas and S up eri or C ou rtcon cl ud ed thatbecau se D eShi el ds ’ s couns el cr os s - exami ned D avi s , D eShi el ds w as notpr ej udi ced. T hats i des t eps th e iss u e . D e S h ield s d o e s n o t co n ten d th a t h is c o u n se l w a s d e f icie n t b e c a u se h e f

a iled to c ro ss -e x a m in e D a v is; h e c laim s th a t h is c o u n se l w a s d e f icie n t b e c a u se h e f

a iled to confr ontD avi s w i th t he cl earcontr adi ct i on betw een he rtr i al t es t i m onyand the s t at ement s he made t o O ffi cerD eharton t he ni ghtof the i nci dent . N ei therthe C our tof C om m on Pl eas northe Super i orC our taddr es s ed thati s s ue. 3 Second, D eShi el ds al l eges thathi s couns el w as defi ci entforfai l i ng t o i ntr oduce ev iden ce that h is cl o thing w as tested fo r gu n sh o t r esid u e a n d the re su lt s w ere i nconcl us i ve. T he s t at e court s concl uded thatD eShi el ds w as notpr ej udi ced be caus e a9

g o v ern m en t w itn ess, E v an s, h ad alread ytest ifi ed that su ch test s w ere run o n D eS h iel d s’s hands and cl othi ng and w er e i nconcl us i ve. T hat , how ever , i s noti n acc or d w i th the r ecor d. A ttr i al , E vans t es t i fi ed thatD eShi el ds ’ s hands w er e t es t ed forgun s hotr es i due and the resul t s w ere i nco nclusi ve. H e t hen i nd i cat ed that , despit e t he tes tres ult s, D eShi el ds coul d have f i r ed a gun a nd then w i ped hi s hands on hi s cl othes . E vans di d not t est i fythat D eS hiel ds’s cl othes had als o b een tes t ed an d thatthe resul t s w ere l i kew i se i nconcl us i ve. I n fac t , he s peci fi cal l ydi s cl ai m ed know i ng w hetherthe cl othes had bee n t est ed. T he incon cl usi ve tes t i ng on the clothes w as neve r putbefo re the jurybecau se D eShi el ds ’ s couns el di d nott ake a nys t eps t o do s o, s uch as cal l i ng a w i tnes s fr om the la b o ra to ry to te s tif

ya b o u t th e re s u lts o r o th e rw is e e n te ri n g th e la b re p o rt in to e v id e n c e . T h ird , D e S h ield s c laim s th a t h is c o u n se l w a s d e f icie n t f o r f a ili n g to c a ll B uffi ngt on and Penn, w ho w oul d have t es t i fi ed thattheyw er e w i th ornearD eShi el ds d u rin g th e a lterc a tio n a n d th a t h e n e ith e r p o ss e ss e d n o r f ire d a g u n . T h e sta te c o u rts concl uded thatD eShi el ds ’ s couns el had a r eas onabl e bas i s fornotcal l i ng B uffi ngt on and Penn beca us e ther e w er e i ncons i s t enci es betw een w hattheyw oul d have s ai d, w hi ch w o u ld h a v e c re a ted c re d ib ili typ ro b lem s f o r th e d e f

e n se . In p a rticu lar , B u f f in g to n w o u ld have t es t i fi ed thathe and D eShi el ds fel l t o the gr ound aft erhear i ng the s hot s and Penn w o u ld h av e testi fied that sh e sa w D eS h iel d s an d B u ff ing ton run n ing as th e sh o ts w ere fi r ed. A s the D i s tr i ctC ourtpoi nt ed out , how ever , the s t at e court s unnece s s ar i l ytr eat ed B u f f in g to n a n d P e n n a s a p a c k a g e d e a l. E v e n a c c e p tin g th a t itw a s a re a so n a b le s tra teg ic10

choi ce t o s aythatthe i ncons i s t encybetw een thei rpr opos ed t es t i m oni es w as s er i ous en o u g h to av o id ca ll ing them b o th, th at do es n o t ans w er the q u esti o n o f w h yD eS h iel d s’s couns el chos e t o cal l nei ther . T he t es t i m onyof ei therw i tnes s w oul d have bol s t er ed the defe ns e on the cr i t i cal ques t i on of w hetherD eShi el ds pos s es s ed and f i r ed a gun. T he r e c o r d d o e s n o td i s c l o s e a n yo th e rr e a s o n f o rd e c i d i n g n o tt o c a l l e i th e rwi tn e s s a n d we ar e l eftt o w onderw hats ound r eas on ther e coul d have be en. C f . Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at 6 9 0 -9 1 (“ [ S ]tra teg ic c h o ice s m a d e a f ter les s th a n c o m p lete in v e stig a tio n a re re a so n a b le pr eci s el yt o t he ext entthatr eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent s s uppor tthe l i m i t at i ons on in v e s tig a tio n .” ). W e re c o g n ize th e in h e re n t d if f icu lti e s in se rv in g a s d e f e n se c o u n se l. A tto rn e y s in thatr ol e ar e typi cal l ycal l ed upon t o or gani ze a nd as s i m i l at e compl i cat ed and vol um i nous i nform at i on as theypr epar e fortr i al . T heym us tm ake di ffi cul tand oft en hurr i ed deci s i ons i n t he hea tof tr i al . T heyar e r equi r ed t o thi nk cr eat i vel y , actr es our cef ul l y , and a d v o c a te th e ir c lien t’s c a u se s w ith z e a l an d e th ica l se n sitiv ity , all w h ile n e c e ss a rily s ervi ng as a s oundi ng boar d foranxi ous defe ndant s and the def endant s ’ fami l i es . I ti s no j o b f o rth e f a i n to f h e a r t , a n d w e a r e r e l u c t a n tt o f i n d f a u l t . T a k e n i n d i v i d u a l l y, D e S h ield s’s c o u n se l’s f a ilu re s w o u ld p e rh a p s b e in su f f icie n t f o r u s to c o n c lu d e th a t h is p e rf o rm a n c e w a s c o n stitu tio n a llyd e f icie n t. Y e t, w h e n th e re c o rd is v iew e d a s a w h o le and the cumul at i ve ef

fec tof couns el ’ s fai l ur es i s cons i der ed, w e fe el compel l ed t o s ay th a t D e S h ie ld s ’s c o u n s e l w a s d e f ic ie n t in h is p e rf

o rm a n c e .11

W e a lso c o n c lu d e , as th e D istric t C o u rt d id , tha t D e S h ield s w a s p re ju d ice d b yh is couns el ’ s defi ci ency . E ach of the fa i l ur es di s cus s ed her e conc erns the ce ntr al i s s ue i n t he cas e - w hetherD eShi el ds pos s es s ed and f i r ed a gun - and cur i ng them m ayw el l have l ed to a d if f e re n t o u tco m e . H a d D a v is b e e n c o n f ro n ted w ith h e r p rio r in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n t, h ad ev iden ce b ee n intr o d u ce d that test s fo r gu n sh o t r esid u e o n D eS h iel d s’s cloth es w ere i nconcl us i ve, and had Buffi ngt on orPenn t aken the s t and t o t es t i fythatD eShi el ds di d not pos s es s orfi r e a gun, ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythatatl eas tone j ur orw oul d have harbor ed a r eas onabl e doubtas t o D eShi el ds ’ s gui l t . C ons equent l y , D eShi el ds w as d e p riv e d o f

e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. I I I . C onc l us i on B e c a u se th e sta te c o u rts u n re a so n a b lya p p lied th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on i n deny i ng D eShi el ds ’ s Si xth A m endmenti neff ect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n s e l c la im , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o rr e c tly g ra n te d th e p e titio n f o r h a b e a s c o rp u s . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m .