2008 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 11-13-2008 

# S teward v . Gra ce 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 . 07-3632

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_2008

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 2008 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 " S t ewar d v . Gr a c e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 238. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/238The Honorable AnneE. Thompson, Senior District Judg e for the United States District * Court of NewJ ersey , sitti ngby designation. 1 NOT 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. 07- 3632 DAVI D S T E WARD, A ppel l ant v. J AM ES GRA CE; DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UNT Y OF M ONT GOMER Y; T H E A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s tr i ctC our tN o. : 04- C V - 3587 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C ynthi a M . R ufe

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o the Thi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

O ct ober21, 2008 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges , T H O M P S O N , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: N ovember13, 2008)2 ____________ OP I NI ON

_____________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . T hi s cas e ar i s es outof the veryvi ol entm ur derof D r . M i chae l G r ol l . T he C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a cha r ged and tr i ed D avi d St ew ar d i n connec t i on w i th the cr i m e. D ur i ng the governm ent ’ s pr es ent at i on of i t s cas e, St ew ar d’ s couns el chal l enged the pr os ecut i on’ s w i tnes s es and evi dence . C oncerned thathi s cl i entm i ghtbe s ent ence d t o death beca us e of the s ubs t ant i al evi dence i m pl i cat i ng St ew ar d, couns el s hi ft ed t act i cs a n d , w ith o u t co n su lti n g S tew a rd o r o b tain in g h is c o n se n t, co n c e d e d S tew a rd ’s g u ilt dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum entand as ked the j uryt o fi nd St ew ar d gui l tyof s econd- degr ee m u r d e r . S t e w a r d w a s c o n v i c t e d o f f i r s t - d e g r e e m u r d e r , a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , r o b b e ry, b u r g l a ry, th e f

tb y u n l a w f

u l t a k i n g , p o s s e s s i n g i n s tru m e n t s o f c r i m e , c r i m i n a l c o n s p i r a c y, re c e iv in g sto len p ro p e rty , rec k les s e n d a n g e rm e n t, an d c a rry in g a f ire a rm w ith o u t a lic e n s e . H e w a s s e n te n c e d to lif e p lu s 1 5 .5 to 4 5 y e a rs . St ew ar d’ s di r ectappea l w as uns ucce s s ful , and hi s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on M ar ch 2, 2002. H e fi l ed a pr o s e peti t i on for r el i ef un der the P enn sy l van i a P ost C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) on a numberof gr ounds , i ncl udi ng the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . T he s t at e courtdi s m i s s ed hi s cl ai m s . Subse quent l y , St ew ar d fi l ed a n a p p lica tio n f

o r th e w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied S tew ard ’s pe ti ti o n , an d S tew ardU nderthe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct( “A E D PA ”) , a fe der al 1 courtm aygr anthabea s corpus r el i ef onl yi f the s t at e courtpr ocee di ng “‘ r es ul t ed i n a d e c isio n th a t w a s c o n tra ryto , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f , cle a rly e sta b lish e d F e d e ra l law ... ; [ o r] 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 eterm ination o f th e f

ac ts i n li g h t of

the e v iden ce p rese n ted in the S tat e c o u rt pr ocee di ng. ’ ” App elv. H orn , 2 5 0 F .3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254( d) ) . M or e s peci fi cal l y , a s t at e courtdeci s i on i s “contr aryt o” cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fede r al l aw i f i ti s “‘ s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r entfr om the r el evantpr ece dent . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 (2 0 0 0 )). A sta te c o u rt d e c isio n is a n “ u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on” i f: ( 1) “‘ the s t at e courti dent i fi es the corr ectgoverni ng l egal rul e fr om [the] C our t ’ s cas es butunr eas onabl yappl i es i tt o the fa ct s ; ’ ” or( 2) “‘ the s t at e courtei ther u n re a so n a b lye x ten d s a leg a l p rin c ip le f ro m o u r p re c e d e n t to a n e w c o n tex t w h e re it sh o u ld n o t app lyo r un rea so n ab lyref u ses to ex tend that p ri n ciple to a n ew co n text w h ere i ts houl d appl y . ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 0 7 ). 3 f ile d th is tim e ly ap p e a l. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e w ill a f f ir m . I n a s mu c h a s we wr i t e p r i ma r i l yf o rth e p a rt i e s , wh o a r e f a mi l i a rwi th th i s c a s e , we need notr eci t e addi t i onal fac tual orpr ocedur al backgr ound. I n Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , the Supr eme C our tcons i der ed the ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a de fenda nt ’ s convi ct i on m aybe s etas i de due t o the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . A defe ndantm us ts how : ( 1) “couns el ’ s per form ance 1 w as defi ci ent , ” namel ythat“couns el m ade e rr or s s o s er i ous thatcouns el w as not funct i oni ng as the ‘ couns el ’ guar ant eed the def endantbythe Si xth A m endment , ” and ( 2) “t he d efi ci ent per form ance p rej ud i ced the defe nd ant, ” such that“cou nsel ’s err ors w ere s o s er i ous as t o depr i ve the def endantof a f

ai rtr i al , a tr i al w hos e r es ul ti s r el i abl e. ” I d. at 687. T hes e pr ongs m aybe eva l uat ed as the ci r cumst ance s w arr ant : “A l though w e have di s cus s ed the per form ance componentof an i neff ect i venes s cl ai m pr i ort o the pr ej udi ceT h e sta te c o u rt n e e d n o t cite to re lev a n t S u p re m e C o u rt c a se s s o lo n g a s it 2 id e n tif ie s th e c o rr e c t le g a l p ri n c ip le s . P r i es t erv. V aughn , 3 8 2 F . 3 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 4 component , ther e i s no r eas on fora court . . . t o appr oach the i nqui ryi n the s ame or deror even a ddr es s both component s of the i nqui ryi f the def endantm akes an i ns uffi ci ent s how i ng on one. ” I

d. at697. In the p res ent cas e, the st at e cou rtcon si dered an d ad j ud i cat ed S t ew ard’ s Str i ckland cl ai m on the mer i t s . W hi l e i tdi d notci t e t o Str i ckland , the courtcons i der ed the corr ect 2 g o v e rn in g leg a l p rin c ip les . It n o ted th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia la w re q u ire s th e d e f e n d a n t to pr ove: “( 1) the under l y i ng cl ai m i s of ar guabl e mer i t ; ( 2) couns el ’ s cour s e of c onductw as w i thouta r eas onabl e bas i s des i gned t o eff ectuat e hi s cl i ent ’ s i nt er es t ; and, ( 3) he w as pr ej udi ced bycouns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s . ” A ccordi ng l y , un der A E D P A , this decis i on m ust b e u p h e ld u n le s s it is c o n tr a ry to o r a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f f e d e ra l la w . T he s t at e court , i n i t s PC R A opi ni on, found thatSt ew ar d had demonstr at ed nei ther d e f icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e n o r p re

ju d ice . It fo u n d th a t co u n se l’s s tra teg y“ w a s a re a so n a b le tac tica l d e c isio n g iv e n th e u n c o n tro v e rte d e v id e n c e th a t ea silysu p p o rte d a v e rd ict o f firstd e g re e m u rd e r.” I t als o n o ted th a t S tew a rd “ v e ryp ro b a b lyw o u ld h a v e b e e n se n ten c e d to death butforthos e t act i cs . ” A ppl y i ng A E D PA ’ s s t andar d of r evi ew , w e do notfi nd t hat this an aly sis i s co n tr aryto o r an u n rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n o f f ed era l l aw . S tew ard ap p ea rs to c o n c e d e in h is a p p e llate b rie f th a t co u n se l’s d e c isio n to a d m it h is g u iltw a s re a so n a b le u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s: “ In th e f a c e o f o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f g u iltin a h o rrif

ic5

m ur dercas e, tr i al s tr at egyai m ed atavoi di ng fac i ng a s i ngl e j uryw i th confl i ct i ng pos i t i ons [of i ns uffi ci entevi dence dur i ng the gui l tphas e, buta pl ea f orm er cyat s ent enci ng] . . . i s notan i l l ogi cal choi ce. ” ( B r . of A ppel l ant33. ) Fur therm or e, ther e w as overw hel m i ng evi dence of the def endant ’ s gui l ti n thi s cas e— i ncl udi ng hi s s i gned con fessi on , his han d-draw n rende ri ng of the vict i m ’s bed room , a strong ey ew i tness id e n tific a tio n , an d b a lli stic s e v id e n c e — su c h th a t itis u n lik e lyth e trial o u tco m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e re n t a b s e n t c o u n s e l’ s c o n c e s s io n . S t e w a r d a r g u e s th a t , r a th e rth a n a p p l y Str i ckland ’s tw o -pro n g ed an aly sis, the C o u rt m u st ev alua te his ca se u n d er U n itedS ta tes v . C ro n ic , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 4 8 , 6 5 0 (1 9 8 4 ). C ro n ic pr ovi des a narr ow exce pt i on t o Str i ckland ’ s pr ej udi ce r equi r ementw hen “c i r cumst ance s [] ar e s o l i kel yt o pr ej udi ce the ac cus ed thatthe cos tof l i t i gat i ng thei reff ecti n a part i cul arcas e i s unj us t i fi ed. ” C ro n ic , 466 U . S. at658. I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , pr ej udi ce m a yb e p re su m e d . S tew a rd c o n ten d s th a t co u n se l’s c o n c e ss io n o f g u ilt , m a d e w ith o u t h is co n sen t, d u ri n g clos ing arg u m en t fall s u n d er C ro n ic beca us e couns el fai l ed t o s ubj ectt he p ro se c u tio n ’s c a se to m e a n in g f u l ad v e rsa ria l tes tin g a n d c o n stru c tiv e lyd e n ied h im c o u n se l. C o n tr aryto S tew ard ’s arg u m en t, this case n ee d n o t be c o n side red u n d er C ro n ic . In announci ng the l i m i t ed exc ept i on t o Str i ckland , the C r oni c C our tci t ed a numberof ca s es to d e m o n s tr a te th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s in w h ic h p re ju d ic e m a yb e p re s u m e d . I d. a t 6 5 8 n .2 4 . T h e c ite d c a s e s in v o lv e d S ix th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n s , in tera lia , s uch as the6

d isqu ali fica ti o n o f th e d ef en d an t’ s co u n sel o f c h o ice; a d ef en d an t w ea ri n g p ri so n att ir e and s hackl es forthe dur at i on of hi s tr i al ; j uryexpos ur e t o new s s t or i es ; and the admi s s i on into e v iden ce o f o n e c o -de fe n d an t’ s statem en t, im p li ca ti n g the o ther, i n a join t tri al. In e a c h o f th e se c a se s, th e e rro r ta in ted th e p ro c e e d in g a s a w h o le s u c h th a t itc o u ld underm i ne fa i th i n t he out come, pos s i bl yi n w ay s thatthe part i es coul d notper cei ve or con trol . A n err or l i ke the presenton e do es not fal l un der this rubri c, ho w ever, becau se the err or occu rr ed at a di scr et e st age an d o nlyaft er adversar i al t est i ng fai l ed to decrease th e lik e lih o o d o f

a d e a th s e n te n c e . See D i t ch v. G r ace , 479 F. 3d 249, 256 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “[W ] e r ead C r oni c in a lim ited f a sh io n . . . . [ A ] p re su m p tio n o f p re ju d ice a p p lies o n lyin ca ses w h ere the d en ial o f c o u n sel w o u ld n ec essa ri lyu n d erm ine th e re li ab il ityo f th e e n ti re crim inal p roc ee d ing . ”). T hi s r eadi ng i s cons i s t entw i th the C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B el lv. C one , 535 U . S. 685 ( 2002) . T he B e ll C our ts t at ed that“[w ] hen w e s poke i n C ro n ic of the pos s i bi l i tyof p r e s u mi n g p r e

j u d i c e b a s e d o n a n a t t o rn e y ’ s f a i l u r e t o t e s tth e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s c a s e , we in d ica ted th a t th e a tto rn e y ’s f a ilu re m u st b e c o m p lete . W e sa id ‘if c o u n se l e n tire ly f

a ils to s ubj ectthe pr os ecut i on’ s cas e t o m eani ngful adver s ar i al t es t i ng. ’ ” I d. at697 ( quot i ng C ro n ic , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 5 9 ). T h e C o u rt th e n re jec ted th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c laim , w h ich it char act er i zed a s ar gui ng “notthathi s couns el fai l ed t o oppos e the pr os ecut i on thr oughout th e se n ten c in g p ro c e e d in g a s a w h o le, b u t th a t h is c o u n se l f a iled to d o so a t sp e c if

ic poi nt s . ” I

d.Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent , deny i ng S te w a rd ’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n .