## 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. 07

- 2634 C LE VE LA ND C. B Y NUM, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. B RUCE L E MM ON, 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 Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:05- CV-374

—Phi li p P. Si mon, Judg e.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 25, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 27, 2009

Befo re R OV NER, W OO D , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A La ke C o u n t y, I nd iana cou rt c on vic te d C lev ela n d B y n u m of m u rd er in g fiv e p eo p le an d s en te nc ed hi m t o 3 00 y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t. By num fi l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a wr i to fh a b e a s c o r pu s u nd e r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 254, co ntending that hi s t ri alco unsel was i neffec tive in failin g t o p u t h im on th e s ta n d atth e h ea rin g on h is m otion to s uppr es s hi s po st
- ar r es t co nfes si o ns t o the m urders

. Bynum c on tend s that hi s co nfe ssi on was co er ce d an d th at, ha d he te st i fi ed ab o ut th e co er ci o n, the2 N o. 07

- 2634
tr i alc o ur t woul d hav e g r an te d hi s m o ti o n t o s uppr es s. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed Byn um ’ s pet i ti o n a nd, b ecaus e he ha s not sh ow n th a t he w as p rej ud iced by his cou ns el’ s i n e ffe c t i v e n e s s , w e a ffi r m.

I
. O n F e b r u ar y 1 6, 20 00 , B yn u m be ga n arg u in g w ith h is fri en d A nt hon y Jeffers. By nu m w as u p s e t b ecau se Jeffers ha d told p eop le that B yn um w as a d rug d ealer. A third perso n, El i zabe th Da ily-Ayres , witnes sed the confro ntati o n. La te r, i n the e ar l y ho ur s of F eb r ua r y 1 7, By num resu m ed the argu m en t, th is ti m e at Jeffers’s hom e. Jeffers’s gir lfrien d , A n gie W alla c e, w as p re se n t d u rin g t h is se c on d arg u m en t a lon g w ith W alla c e’s 18 -m on th -old d au g h te r, h er sis te r Su sa n, an d Su sa n ’s t h irt ee n -ye ar -old s o n, “ L

. B

. ” T h a tn i g h t, L

. B. , sl e e p i n gi n a d i ffe r e n tr o o m, w as aw ake ned by fi ve gunshots

. L. B. tes ti fi ed at tr i althat, i m m edi at el y f o l l o wi ngthe fi r stfew s ho ts a nd w hi l e he wa s s t i l l i n t h e b e d r o o m, h e h e a r d t wo me n t a l k i n g . He tes ti fi ed that one voi ce was Bynum ’ s, ev en though he had m etB y n u m o n l y o n c e b e f o r e . Ac c o r d i n gt o L

. B

. , B y num sai d “som et h in g a b ou t p u tt in g a n ot h er sh ell in .” L .B . sta ted th at th e o th er m an , w h os e vo ice h e d id n otrec og n ize , said “[ D]on’ t r ush m e, ” a nd Bynum r esponded “[ S] hoother i n the h e a d. ” Aft e r By nu m a nd the s e c o nd ma n de pa r t e d, L

. B. l eft the bedro om and di sco ver ed that J effer s, A n gie W al l ac e, a nd S us an W al l ac e wer e al l de ad. The 1 8- m o nthol d chil d w as spatte re d w i th bl oo d, but she was sti l l al i ve. On that sam e eve ni ng i n a differ ent hou se , E l i zabe th D ail y-A yres, S h eil a B artee, and M ichelle Fl iri s w ereN o. 07

- 2634 3 prepar i ng f orbed. A ccor ding to Fl i ri s, Dai l y- A yr es paged som eon e an d received a p hon e call a few m om en t s la t e r. She then deci ded t o go to the l i quor sto re al ong w i th Barte e. Fl i ri s went to sl eep, but aw oke sever alhour s l ate r to find thatDai l y- A yr es and Bartee had neverr etur ned f ro m the sto re . Fl i ri s no ti ced a pie ce o fpaper Dail y- A yr es had l eft bythe phone; o n i t was w ri tte n the nam e “ Ch ri s” a s w e l l a s a p h o n e n u mb e r . ( B y n u m, w h o s e mi d d l e n a me i s “Ch r i st o phe r, ” o fte n g o es b y the ni ckna m e “Ch r i s. ”) The next day, pol i ce fou nd Dai l y- A yr es’ s a nd Bart ee’ s bo die s l y i ngo n the g r o und in a ba se ba l l pa r k, r i ddl ed wi thg unshotwoun ds. O n Fe b ru a r y 1 8 , office rs arr es te d B yn u m an d h eld h im f ortwo days on a pro bati on vi ol ati on. Duri ng tha t t i m e, Bynum m ade two st ate m ents to pol i ce. I n hi s fi rs t s tat em en t, m ad e o n the da y o fhi s ar r es t, he a dm i tt ed k i l l i ng J effer s an d the W al l ac e si st er s. He a l so a dm i tt ed th athe kn ew Da il y-A yres an d had gi ven h e r h is pager n um ber, buti ns i st ed th at he ha d no t sh o t he r o r Bar te e. I ns te ad, he re port ed that Dail y- A yr es an d Bart ee w er e pr ese nt at J effer s’ s ho m e when he s ho t th e oth erthr ee v i ct i m s, b ut th at th ey left acc o m p an ied by tw o m en, De an d re M ac In to sh a n d T er re ll Ja ckso n. Bynum acknow ledged thathe knew M acI n to sh a nd J acks on i ntended to ki l l Da i l y - Ay r e s a nd Ba r t e e , b ut c l a i med tha t he had no thi ngt o do wi ththo se murde r s. Acco r di ngt o the ar re sti ng o ffi cer s, theyr ea d Bynu m hi s M i ra nd a r i ghts bef or e he gave hi s s tat em ent. Bynum al so si gned a w ai ver f or m i n w hi ch he a cknowle dged that he was adv i sed o f h is c on st itu tio n a l righ ts , in c lu d in g h is rig h t t o c ou n se l, and that no nethel ess he wai ved tho se ri ghts. H e a l so4 N o. 07

- 2634

ac k no wl edg ed i n wr i ting tha t hi s st at ementwas v o l unt a r y a n d th a tn o o n e h a d th r e a t e n e d h i m. Tw o days l ate r Bynum si gned a seco nd , i denti calwri tte n w ai verand m ade a seco nd st ate m ent. H e confi rm ed that h e h a d k i l l e d J e ffe r s a n d th e Wa l l a c e s . T h i s t i m e, h o weve r, he e xoner ate d M acI ntos h and J acks on, i nstea d claim ing tha t Jeffer s shot Da il y-A yres an d Ba rtee before Byn um k i ll ed hi m . He kne w thi s, he s ai d, b ec au se he w itness ed the m urd ers an d becau se Jeffers us ed By nu m ’s g un. The n, Byn um co nt i nue d, J effer s f o r ce d hi m at gunpoi nt to dragthe bodi es to the b as eballparkwh er e they w er e f ound. Bynum expl ai ned that he had w al ked ba ck to J effer s’ s house w i th Jeffer s. Jeffer s gave the gun back to Bynum , but w hen they go t into an ar gum ent a nd beg an pus hi nge ac h o th er, the g un a cc i den ta l l y wento ff, hi tti ng J e ffe r s . Ang i e a nd S us a n W a l l a c e b e g a n t o y e l l a nd a pproa ched Bynum , wh o i nter prete d thei r conduct as a th r ea t an d s ho t th em both

. T he n, By num cl ai m ed, he w ent ho m e a nd , the next m or ni ng, thre w hi s gun i n a l ake

. B efo re tria l, B yn u m m et w i t h h is a p p oin te d co u n se l, Ch ar les Gradd i ck. A ccor ding to Bynum ’ s t est i m ony at hi s p o st
- co nv i ct i o n h ea r i ng, he t o l d Gr addi cktha t dur i ng hi s inter ro gat i on, pol i ce threa tened hi m with viol ence w hen he a ske d fo r a l aw yer . Bynum al so re port ed that th e o fficer s ha d ha ndcu ffed hi m t o a c ha i r f o r ni ne hours, de p riv ed hi m o ff oo d and w ate r, and re fused to l et hi m use th e b athr oo m . Byum furthercl ai m ed that Offi cerLoui s Donal d tol d him thatthe po li ce had Bynum ’ s fi ancée i n custo dy and w oul d charg e h er w i th obs tr ucti on o fj ustice and harb or i ng a fugi ti ve, ev entsN o. 07

- 2634 5 that w oul d requi re thatthei r son en te r chi l d prote cti ve ser vi ces. I t was o nl y a fters ee i ng hi s fi ancée at the pol i ce st at i o n, By num co nt i nu ed, tha t he a g r ee d t o s i g n the wai ve r f o r m a nd mak e hi s fi r sts ta te m en t. F i na l l y, By num cl ai m ed th atDo na l d f ab r i ca te d the s ec o nd c o nfes si o n. Gradd i ck di d n o tr e s po nd to thes e co ncer ns i m m edi ate l y, buta t tr i al, he move d t o s uppr es s Byn um ’s c o nfes si o ns on the t h eory that they w er e co er ced. Graddickdi d not askBynum to te sti fy a t the m i d-tr i alsu p p ressi on he ar i ng, i ns tead ques ti o ni ngo nl y the thr ee o ffi ce r s who too k Bynum ’ s s tat em ents. The o ffi cer s t est i fi ed that Byn um ne ve r a sk ed f o r c o uns el, ne ver told the m he w as t ir e d or hu ng ry, and at no p oint d uring the interrogation seem ed un w il li ng to talk to the m . Th e offic e rs als o d en ied p h ys ica lly th re at en in g B yn u m or co er c in g h im i n a ny way, a l th o ug h the y a ckno wl edg ed th atBy num see m ed ner vous and w as w or ri ed abo ut hi s f am i l y. M or eo ve r, the S ta te of I ndi an a i nt r o duce d i nt o e vi den ce the tw o w ai verf or m s. Aft erthe offi ce r s te st i fi ed an d c o uns elpr es en te d a r g um en t, the tr i alc o ur t j udg e r ul ed th atBy num’s c o nfes si o ns wer e vo l unt ar y a nd de ni ed the mot i o n t o s uppr es s. The j udg e ex pl aine d tha t he fo und the o ffi ce r s’ t estim o ny cre dibl e, not i ng tha t “the poli ce in no way i nter fer ed w i th th e vo l unt ar i ne ss o f th e co nfes si o n” an d th at “th e d efen d an t w as p ro p er ly M i r a n d ize d an d ap p ris ed h im of h is ri ghts, and he was gi ven a n o p portunity t o bring i n an att or ney i fhe des i re d to do so

. ” A fte r th e r em ai nd ero f th e trial, a j ury conv icted B yn um of five coun ts of m urd er, l ar gel y b ase d on the confess i ons.6 N o. 07

- 2634 Byn um c ha l l en g ed hi s co nv i ct i o n o n di r ec t appe alt o no avail. H e the n sou gh t po stcon viction reli ef in sta te cou rt w i th new counsel, ar gui ng tha t hi s t ri all aw yerwas i neffecti ve i n f ai l i ng to put hi m o n the sta nd t o te st ify a t the s up press i on hea ri ng. A t a n evi denti ar y hea ri ng, Gradd i ck tes ti fi ed that he di d not r ecal l By num ev er tel l i ng hi m thathe ha d been pre vented fr om o btaini ng a law ye r, a n d m ain ta in ed th at if B yn u m h ad to ld h im about that, he woul d have m ove d to suppress the sta tem ents bef or e t ri al. M or eov er, Graddickexpl ai ned that he de ci ded to move t o s uppr es s th e co nfessi ons dur i ng tr i a l r a the r tha n b e f o r e b e c a us e h e di d n o twa ntt o g i ve the s tat e a dvance not i ce o fhi s t ri al str ate gy. A nd Graddick st ate d that, i n hi s v i ew , the bestway to sho w co er ci on was t o ge t th e o ffi ce r s to t el li nc o ns i st en t st o r i es abo ut th e in te rro ga tio n . Fin ally , he d es c rib ed h is fe ar s t h at, i f pu t o n the sta nd , By n u m ’s versi on o fev ents w oul d not wi th st an d c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n: Counsel : W hy was i t that i fyo u did i n f act have a

supp re ssi on hea ri ng, yo u w oul d not hav e h ad M r. Bynum te sti fy in that port i on o f th e t ria l? Gr a ddi c k : I was a f r a i d f o r M r . By nu m b e c a us e Ihad

h a d ma n y d i s c u s s i o n s w i th Mr
. B y n u m, and each t i m e I ’ d hav e an at- l ength disc ussi o n wi thM r. B yn um , Ib ec ame mor e an d mor e s ur e tha to nc e h e t o o k the s t a nd , tha th e c o ul dn ’ th o l d u p. Counsel : A l l r i ght. A nd wh at w as i t that he tol d you

about w hat had occurr ed at the pol i ceN o. 07

- 2634 7
sta ti on that w oul d hav e l ed you to bel i eve that he co uld not hol d up w i th r espectto

— Gradd i ck: W el l, i n parthi s v er si on o fw hat had ta ken

place, and w hen Iwould askhi m questi o ns ab o uti t, Iwa s a l wa y s ab l e t o p i ck h ole s in w h a t h e w as sa yin g a n d m ak e it not bel i evab l e. Theref or e, Graddick continued , he c oncl ud ed i t would not be in Bynum ’ s be st i nter estto te sti fy. A Lak e Cou nty, I ndi an a co ur t den ied By num postco n vic tio n re l i ef

. The co urt note d that Gra dd i ck m ade “t acti calchoi ces to raise the i ssues thathe b el i ev ed ha d m erit an d t o r ai se the m i n the way he thought w as i n t h e b est i nter esto fhi s cl i ent. ” Because Gradd i ck w as ske pt icalthatBynum ’ s v er si on o fev ents w as true, the cour t co nti nued , he r eas onabl y a tte m pted to s uppr es s th e co nfes si o ns us i ngpo l i ce t estim o ny al one. Fi nal l y, the cour t concl ud ed that Gradd i ck’ s s tr ate
gi c deci si ons did not f al l bel ow pre vai l i ng p rofess i onal n o r ms a n d d i d n o tp r ej u d i c e B y n u m. Bynum so ught r evi ew i n the I nd i ana Courto fA pp eals, ar g ui ngtha t th e L ake C ounty c o ur t er r ed i n c o nc l udi ng that Gradd i ck’ s per f or m ance was co nsti tu tional l y a dequa te
. The Cou r t o fAppea l s di sa g r ee d. F i r st, a ddr es sing whethe r Gr addi ck ’ s r epr es en ta ti o n was de fi cie nt, the cour t obser ved that, atthe supp re ssi on hea ri ng, Gr addi cks ucc es sful l y e st abli sh ed th r o ug h que st i o ni ng the pol i ce o ffi cer s that Byn u m to l d the o ffi cer s he w as afraid for his fi an cee’s safety. Eve n afte r the trial cou rt denie d the m oti on t o supp re ss, n ote d the Courto fA pp eal s,8 N o. 07

- 2634 Gradd i ck soughtto underm i ne the o ffi cer s’ cr edibi l i ty by questi oni ng them about Bynum ’ s al l ega ti ons that th ey thre ate ned him and his f am i l y. Thi s a ggr ess i ve questi oni ng l ed the Court ofA pp eal s t o concl ud e that G rad d ick’s perform an ce w as no t d e fi cient
. Th e cou rt r ea so ne d: “ M er e di sa g reem en t wi tht r i alc o uns el ’ s ha ndli ng o fhi s defense does n ot m ake an ineffecti ve as sis ta n c e c laim .” M or eov er, co nti nued the cour t, ev en if Gradd i ck had cal l ed Bynum to te sti fy, Bynum would not have been ab l e to s ho w tha t he ha d b ee n pr ej udi ce d b ec au se the tr i alco urt sti l l co uld have rea so nabl y deni ed the m oti on to supp re ss. A ssum i ng tha t Bynu m ’s testi m ony had been o ffe r e d a tthe s up pr e s s i o n he a r i ng, the c o ur te xp l a i ne d, th e tr i alc o ur t w ou ld st i l l ha ve wei g he d tha t te st i m o ny aga i nst the o ffi cer s’ st ate m ents as w el l as the w ai ver f or m s Bynum had s i gned. The cour t concl ud ed th at, because Bynum had fail ed to subst anti ate hi s a ccount of eve nts, the tr i alco urt coul d not hav e be en expecte d to credi t hi s cl ai m s i n l i g hto fo th erc o nt r ar y e vi den ce . The Court ofA pp eal s there f or e a ffi rm ed the denia l o fr el i ef and the I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t decl i ned to hearthe case . B yn u m n e x t t u rn ed to fed er al c ou rt, ren ew in g h is ar g um en t th atGr addi ck w as i ne ffec ti ve i n f ai l i ngt o put Bynum o n t h e sta nd and al so advanci ng a new theo ry : th at G rad d ick had f ail ed to ade qu ately review the sta te’s d isc ov er y, h is ow n n ot es , an d B yn u m ’s le tt er to h im bef or e t ri al, and additi onal l y had fa iled to spend enough ti m e di sc us singthe c as e wi thBy num, hi s f ami l y, a nd w i tness es . The di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d the l att ercl ai m asN o. 07

- 2634 9 pr o ce dur al l y de f au l te d b ec au se By num had no t ex hausted hi s s tat e co urt re m edi es. A nd the cour t co ncl ud ed th atthe f o r m er c lai m f ar ed no b et te r . Ev entho ug h the cour t co ncl ud ed th at Gradd i ck w as cl ear l y ineffecti ve

— B yn u m ’s testim ony w as th e only eviden ce of coerci on there was, and hi s t est i m ony at the s up p re ssi on hear i ng, o utsi de the pr ese nce o fthe j ury, would not have dam age d h i s ca se

— th e co ur t r ea so ne d tha t Byn um cou ld not sh ow th at he w as p rej ud iced b y Gra d d ick’s i ne ffec ti ve ne ss . The c o ur t th er efo re c o nc l ude d tha t th e st at e appe l l at e co ur t’ s r ul i ngo n the q ue sti o n o fpr ej udice was not an u nrea sonab l e app l i cati on o fcl ear l y e stabl i shed l aw and denie d Bynu m ’ s peti tio n f orco l l ate ra l re lief. The co urt al so gr anted a cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty l i mi t e d t o wh e th e r G r a d d i c kwa s i n e ffe c t i v e i n f ai l i ng to have Bynum te sti fy a t the suppress i on hea ri ng.

II. B yn u m ’s a p p eal challenges the sta te ap p ell ate cou rt’s concl usi ons as to both p ro n gs of hi s cl ai m thathi s t ri al cou ns el w as ineffective. H e argu es th at th e I nd iana C ou rt of A p p eals erred in co n c lu d ing tha t G rad d ick’s perform ance was o bj ecti vel y r eas onabl e. A nd he c on tend s that both the sta t e ap p ell ate cou rt and the d istri ct cou rt shoul d ha ve concl ud ed that he was prej ud i ced by Gra ddi c k ’ s i ne ffe c t i v e ne s s . Ou r r e v i e w o fthe di s t r i ct c ou rt ’s d ec isio n is d e n ov o. See Juli a n v . B a rtley, 495 F. 3d 487, 491 (7th C ir. 2007). We b e g i n wi th l i mi t a t i o n s o n th e s c o p e o fo u r r e v i e w. We m ay gran t colla t e ral reli ef from By nu m ’s state-cou rt10 N o. 07

- 2634

c on vic tio n on ly if th e s ta te co u rt s ’ a d j u d ica tio n of h is i neffecti venes s cl ai m r esul ted i n a deci si on that was ei therco ntrary to, o r i nvol ved an unre aso nabl e a pp l i cation of, fed eral l aw as de term in e d b y the Su p rem e C ou rt ofthe U ni ted S tat es, o r i fthe sta te cour ts’ d ec isio n w as base d on a n unreas onabl e dete rm i nati on o fthe f acts g i ven t he e v i de nc e b e f o r e the s t a t e c o ur t s . 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 25 4(d ); B a rrow v. U ch tm a n, 398 F.3 d 5 9 7, 603 (7th C ir. 2005 )

. A st ate
- cour t deci si on i s co nt raryto cl ear l y e stabl i shed l aw i fi t a pp l i es a l ega l st andard i nconsis te nt with g o ve r ni ngS upr em e Cou r t pr ec ede nto r c o nt r adi ct s th e Suprem e Cour t’ s t re at m ent o fa m ate ri al l y i denti calse t of fa c ts
. B ell v. C o ne, 535 U. S

. 6 85 , 6 94 ( 20 02 ) ( ci ta ti o ns om itt ed ); G o o dm a n v . B ertran d, 467 F.3d 1022 , 1026 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 6 )

. A s t a t e c o u r tu n r e a s o n a b l y ap pl i e s S u p r e me Court prece dent i fthe sta te cour t i denti fi es the c or re ct l ega l r ule but appli es i t in a w ay that i s o bj ecti vel y unre aso n ab le. Ya rbo rou gh v. G entry, 54 0 U .S. 1, 5 (20 03 ); Gil b e r tv. M ercha nt, 488 F.3d 780, 7 9 0 ( 7th Cir. 2007). O ur m ere disa gr eem ent with a s tat e co urt’ s a nal ysi s i s, h owever, not e n ou gh to m ee t t h is s ta n d ar d

. Ja ckson v. Fra nk, 3 4 8 F

. 3d 65 8, 66 2 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). Ra th er , th e s t a t e c ou rt ’s a n aly sis i s r eas onabl e s o l ong as i t sta ys w i thi n the “boundari es ofper m i ssibl e di ffer ences ofo pini on. ” Id. By nu m be l i e v e s tha th e i s e nt i t l e d t o c o l l a t e r a l r e l i ef be ca us e hi s tr i alc ou ns eldi d no t co m pet en tly r epr es en t him , t h ereby depri vi ng hi m o fthe ri ght t o effecti ve ass i sta n c e o fco unsel guar antee d by the S i xth and Four tee nth A m en d m en ts
. See G ideo n v. Wa inrig ht, 372 U

. S. 335 (1963); Ja ckson v. M iller, 26 0 F

. 3d 76 9, 7 75 ( 7th Ci r . 2001 )

. A co nvi cted defend ant cha l l engi ng co unsel ’ s e ffecti venes sN o. 07

- 2634 11

m us t sa ti sfy b o thpr o ng s o fthe wel l

- k no wn St r i ck l and test: h e m ust s how thathi s a tto rney ’ s r epres entat i on was obj ecti vel y defi ci ent, and he m u st sho w thathe was p rej u d ice d by th e s u b st an d ar d p er f o rm an c e. St r i ck l and v. Wa shin gto n, 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 68 7-9 6 (1 98 4); All e n v . Chand ler, 55 5 F .3d 59 6, 6 0 0 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 09 ). B yn u m arg u es th at h is tr ial c o u n se l, G ra d d ick, w as ob j ec tiv ely d efic ien t in f ai l i ngt o ha ve hi m t es ti fy atthe s uppr es si o n h ea r i ng, a nd that had he te sti fi ed, hi s co nfe ssi ons would have been supp re sse d, l eaving the state w i th i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence to s uppo r t hi s co nv i ct i o n. Turningto the first pr ong ofthe St r i ck l and t e s t, we ag re e w ith B yn u m th at th e In d ian a C ou rtof A p p ea ls unreas onabl y concl ud ed that Gradd i ck’ s deci si on t o k ee p hi m fr o m t es ti fy i ngfel l wi th i n the r an g e o fc o m pet en t l eg alr epr es en ta ti o n. By num’s c o nfes si o ns w ere the c r ux ofthe c as e a gai nst hi m . The suppress i on m oti on was ther ef or e cr i ticalto the defe nse: witho ut the confess i ons, th e pr o se cut i o n wou l d ha ve b ee n l eft to de pen d o n the te st i m o ny of a thi r te en - y ea r - o l d b o y who , a fte r meet i ng Bynum o nl y o nce, m er el y hea rd a voi ce fro m ano ther room that he th ou gh t w as B yn um ’s. M oreover, Byn um ’s acc ou nt of t h e o fficers’ coercive cond uc t d uring his int erro gat i on was the onl y a vai l abl e e vi dence ofco er ci on. True, Gradd i ck tes ti fi ed at the pos t- convi cti on hea ringthat he i nt en ded to e l i ci t ev i den ce o fc o er ci o n thr o ug h the offic er s’ t es tim on y. B u t th is p lan , a s th e d ist ric t c ou rtap tly ob se rv ed , i s “ n ottr i a l s t ra te gy ; i t is te lev isio n fan ta sy .” Bynum v. B uss, 2007W L 17492 25, at* 5 ( N
. D. I nd

. J une 14, 20 07 ); see also G o o dm a n, 46 7 F.3d at1 02 9 ( o bs er ving th at “[ t] here i s l i ttl e t acti calwisdom i n counselr est i ng o n12 N o. 07

- 2634 h is ha n d s an d as su m in g th e gov er n m en t w ou ld h elp m ak e t h e d efe n se ca se for h im ”); B a rrow , 398 F. 3d at 605 ( r ej ec tingc l ai m th atc o uns el ’ s f ai l ur e to pr es en t an y evi dence w as l egi ti m ate st ra teg i c m ov e). I n any eve nt, th e “s tr at egy ” f ai l ed, as a c o m pet en t at to r ne y might expect: the o ffi cer s unani m ousl y a nd co nsi ste ntl y s tat ed tha tthe y h a d n o tco er ced By nu m. And wi tho utthe a dm issi on to coe rcion th at G rad d ick had hop ed t he officers w oul d gi ve, he was l eft with no evid en ce that Bynum ’ s co nfe ssi ons w er e co er ced. A m oti on t o supp re ss al l eg edl y i nv o l unt ar y c o nfes si o ns c anno t su cc ee d wi th o ut a tl e a s ts o me e v i de nc e tha tthe c o nfe s si on s we r e c o e r c e d. See Schneckloth v. B ust am onte, 41 2 U.S . 2 18, 22 5- 26 ( 1973 ) ( hol ding that confess i on i s involun tar y o nl y i fpol i ce co er c i o n o r o v e r r e a c h i n g o v e rb o r e th e a c c u s e d ’ s wi l l a nd c au se d th e c on fe s s ion ); C o nn er v. M cB ride, 375 F. 3d 643, 651 (7th Cir. 2004) (sam e). M oreover, Grad d ick’s r eason f o r keep ing B yn um off th e st an d

— that he coul d no t w i thsta nd cr oss - exam i nati on a nd i tmi g htp r ej ud i c e h i s de fe ns e

— wa s b a s e l e s s . Of c o urse B ynum w oul d ha v e b e e n c r o s s - e xa mi ne d, perhaps r i gor ousl y s o. But the m id

- tr i alsuppress i on hear i ng was conducted outsi de the j ury’ s pre sence. U nd er I ndi an a l aw, the que st i on w he th ert o s uppr es s th e co nfes sio n s w as a q u e s t ion for t h e jud ge alon e. Se eM i l l e rv. Sta te, 770 N
. E.2 d 763, 77 2- 73 ( I nd

. 20 02)

. A nd in any case , as the di str i ct c ourto bser ved, “t est i m ony on a m oti on t o su pp ress i s no t admi ss ibl e att r i ala s ev i den ce o fthe de fe nd a nt ’ s gui l t. ” Tho m a s v. Sta te, 734 N
. E.2 d 572, 574 ( I n d. 2000 )

. Thus, ev en i fBynum had cr um bl ed und er cross-ex am ination, i t w ou ld n ot ha ve affected th e j ury’s est i m ati on o fhi s guil t.N o. 07

- 2634 13 T h e o n ly w ay B yn u m c o u l d h av e s u c c ee d ed on h is m o t i o n t o s up pr e s s wa s t o p utf o r th e v i de nc e o fc o e rci on th ro u gh h is ow n te st im on y. A n d an y p rej u d icia l te st im ony Bynum gave at the supp re ssi on hear i ng w ou ld n ot have affecte d any o therparto fthe proc eedi ngs. Graddick thus had no r eas onabl e o pti on but to pu t Byn um o n th e stan d

. A lthou gh w e review tri al coun sel’s p erfor m an c e d efe re n tia lly, see B en-Y isray l v. B uss, 540 F. 3d 542, 5 4 7 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , we c a nn o t c o nc l ud e i n thi s c a se that Gradd i ck’ s deci si on to k eep Bynum fro m te sti fyi ng was sound tr i alst ra tegy. Rather, i t fel l wello utsi de the “r ange of c om p et en c e d em an d ed b y at to rn ey s inc rim in al c as es .” S e e Strick la nd, 46 6 U .S. at 6 87 ; B a rrow , 39 8 F

. 3d at6 05
. The concl usi on r eached bythe I nd i ana Cou rto fA pp eal s, that Gradd i ck’ s f ai l ure to cal l Bynum as a w i tness w as a leg itim at e tria l st ra te gy , is th er efo re an u n re as on ab le appli cati on o fthe St r i ck la nd st an d ar d

. See 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2254 (d)(1). To succe ed i n obt ai ni ng r el i ef, however, Bynum m ust al so sh ow that he w as prej ud i ced by Gradd i ck’ s ineffectivene ss. U nd er Stric k la nd, a defendant m ust pro ve that th ere is a reason able prob a b ili ty th at, but for his l aw yer’s m i sta kes , the re sul t o fthe proce edi ng would have bee n d iffer en t. Stric k la nd, 4 66 U .S. at 6 94 ; s e eal s o Tol i ve rv. M cC a ug htry, 53 9 F .3d 7 66 , 7 74 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). A rea so n ab le pr o babi l i tymean s “a pr o babi l i tys uffi ci en t to unde r m i ne confi dence i n the outco m e. ” Stric k la n d, 466 U

. S. at69 4; see also U nited Sta tes v. Wilso n, 237 F.3d 82 7, 8 3 2 ( 7th Cir. 2001 ) ( noti ng i n d iffer ent c onte xt that“r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty ” i s no t m o r e th an5 0%)

. To su cce ed o n thi s pr o ng ofthe Strickl and te st, By num m us t sh o w tha t, ha d he14 N o. 07

- 2634
t e s t i fi e d , th e r e wa s b o th a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y tha t he wo ul d h a v e p r e v a i l e d o n the mo t i o n t o s up pr e s s and a r e a s o nab l e p r o b abi l i t y tha t, i fh i s c o nfe s s i o ns we r e s up press ed, he woul d have be en acqui tted

. Stric k la nd, 466 U .S. at 6 94 ; R ich a rdso n v . B riley, 401 F.3d 794, 803 (7th Cir. 2006 ). W e ca n re ad ily ass um e that Bynum would have been ac qui tt ed ha d the t wo c o nfes si o ns b ee n s uppr es se d: the pros ecuti on would h ave been l eft with no e vi dence of B yn u m ’ s g u ilt ex c ep t t h e t es tim on y of L .B ., sig n ifica n tly w eak eni ng the sta te’ s c as e. See E ckstein v . Kin gsto n, 460 F.3 d 84 4, 84 8 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ) (ob se rv in g t h at ve rd ict th at is onl y weakl y s up port ed by the r eco rd i s m or e l i kel y t o h av e b ee n af f e c te d th an on e t h at is ov er w h elm in gly su p p or te d ). Th e m or e d ifficu lt q u es tio n is w h et h e r i t is re aso nabl y pr obab l e that Bynum w oul d hav e pr evai l ed on the m oti on t o supp re ss had he te sti fi ed. A nd the answ er to that ques ti on depends on the l i kel i hood thatthe tr i al co ur t would ha ve c r edi te d By num’s t es ti m o ny o ve r the contr ar y e vi dence

— th e th r ee po l i ce o ffi ce r s’ t esti m o ny and Bynu m ’ s s i gned w ai ver s o fr i ghts. W e know thatthe tr i alco urt ass ess ed the tes ti m ony of th e offi cer s ( w hi ch Bynum had the opportunity t o chall enge at the s up press i on hearing) and concl ud ed that th eywer e cr edibl e. W e m us t pr esu m e tha t th i s co ncl us i o n was cor r ec t, s i nc e i t was r ea ch ed afte r a he ar i ng on th e m er its an d is su p p o r t e d b y t h e re c or d

. SeeM agg io v. Fu lfo rd, 4 62 U .S. 11 1, 11 6-1 8 (1 98 3); Armst r ong v. Young, 34 F.3d 4 21, 42 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)

. A l though the tr i alj ud ge did notas ses s during t h e tr ial th e cred ibi li ty of B yn um ’sN o. 07

- 2634 15 al l ega ti ons ofco er ci on, the j ud ge i m pli ci tl y m ade such an as ses sm ent duri ng the post convi cti on pro ceedings, w here Bynum o ffer ed hi s t estim on y about coe rci on t o that sam e j ud ge. W e m ay i nfe r fro m the j ud ge’ s deni alo f po st co nv i ct i o n r el i ef th at he di d no t th i nk the testi m o ny w oul d have chang ed the outco m e o fthe supp re ss i on h ea rin g. See U n i t e d S ta tes v. To ro-P ela ez, 107 F. 3d 819, 82 5 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni a l o fmo t i o n t o s up press i m pli ci tl y r eso l ved cr edibi l i ty i ssues i n f avo r of p olic e o ffice rs rat h er th an d efe n d an t); A rm stron g, 34 F. 3d at 4 2 6-2 7 (ru lin g t h at w h er e o n e v er sio n of fac ts w ou ld ha ve led cou rt t o g ran t m otion to su p p ress, and cou rt d en ied th e m ot i o n, fed er al h ab ea s c or p u s c ou rtco u ld in fer th at co u rtr ejec te d t h at v er sio n o f t h e fac ts ). It w ou ld have been useful had the p ostconvi cti on co urt expla i ned w hy i t di d not cr edit B yn u m ’ s t est i m ony, but w e ca nnot saythati ts ult i m ate co ncl usi on is u nrea sonab l e o r that th e I n d i a n a C o u r to fA p p e a l s u n r e a s o n a b l y a d o p t e d i t
. We c on c lu d e, th er efo re , th at th e C ou rtof A p p ea ls p er m iss ibly r ul ed th ati t was no t r ea so nabl y pr o babl e th atBy num woul d ha ve pr ev ai l ed o n the mot i o n t o s uppr es s ha d he t e s t i fi e d. The de ci si on ofthe I ndi an a Cou r t o fAppea l s o n the questi on o fprej ud i ce i s a cceptabl e fo r anothe r re aso n. That cour t fi l l ed i n the gap l eft b y the post convi cti on co urt by re aso nabl y a nsw er i ng the questi on o fhow to w ei gh Byn um ’ s te st i m o ny a g ains t th e o ffi ce r s’ te st i m o ny a nd the s i gned w ai verf or m s: At t r i al, the thr ee de te ct i ve s pr o vi ded co ns is te nt te st i m o ny tha t co nt r adi ct ed Byn um ’ s as se r tions an d the S tat e intro du ced B ynum ’ s t w o si gned w ai ver16 N o. 07

- 2634 f orm s executed bef or e e ach st ate m ent was m ade. Bynum i s co rr ect that a defendant’s as ser ti ons cannot be di sc o unt ed m er ely be ca us e o f hi s st atus a s a defen dan t o r th e he i no us ne ss o f th e unde r l y i ngc r i m es . But a c ou rtals o c an n otbe ex p ec te d to ac c ep t w h ol e s a le unsu b stanti ate d accusat i ons ofeg re gi ous pol i ce m i sconduct. T his c o nc lusion is not base d on an un reason able un d erstan d ing of St r i ck l and or an unreas onabl e v i ew o fthe f acts
. See 28 U

. S

. C. § 2 25 4( d)

. Ev eni fBy num had te st i fi ed, the onl y s up portf orhi s cl aim s ofco er ci on would have been hi s o w n unco rro b or ate d and sel f

- ser vi ng te sti m ony. H e di d not pre se n t any physi calev i dence ofco er ci on orfirst- hand witnes s a ccounts ofthe i nter ro gat i ons. W i th ou t m or e s up portto Bynum ’ s s tor y, i t was perm i ssibl e fo r th e s tat e a pp el l ate co urt to concl ud e that t he re w as no t a reason able prob abili ty th at th e trialcou rt w ou ld h av e a c c ep te d B yn u m ’s ve rs ion of ev en ts
. See M a ha ffey v . P age, 151 F. 3d 671, 68 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) (holdin g tha t pe titi one r w a s not p rej ud iced by cou ns el’ s de c isio n not to cal l so l e witness to peti ti oner ’ s a l l ege d beat i ng atsuppress i on hea ri ng be cause testi m ony of ar re st in g o ffi cer s a nd as si sta nt at torneys, as wellas ab se n c e o f p h ys ica l ev id en c e o f co er c ion , m ad e it u n like ly th at m ot ion to su p p re ss th e con fes sio n s w ou ld have been gr anted) , o ver rul ed on o th er g ro und s by M a ha ffey v . P age, 16 2 F .3d 48 1 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ); U nited Sta tes v. M a diso n, 689 F. 2d 1300 , 13 08 ( 7th Ci r. 19 82) ( hol ding that c on si st en t t es tim on y g ive n by th re e o ffice rs m ad e it unl i k el y thatde fen dan t’ s m o ti o n t o s uppr es s hi s co nfess i on a s co erc ed w ou l d have be en gr anted ev en tho ugh tw o w i tness es to the i nter ro gat i on had notte sti fi ed atN o. 07

- 2634 17

su p p re ss ion h ea rin g); see a lso U nited Sta tes v . D e a n, 550 F. 3d 626, 630 ( 7th Cir

. 2008 ) ( tr i al cour t’ s deci si on t o cr edi t te st i m ony of t wo o ffi ce r s o ve r tha t o fde fen dan t w as not cl ear l y e rr oneo us w here ther e was n o evi dence tha to ffi c e r s h a d t e s t i fi e d u nt r uthful l y )

. T he s t a t e c o ur ts’ j ud gm ent that Bynum di d not s ati sfy the prej u d i ce pr o ngof St r i ck l andi s thus w i thi n the “boundari es of perm i ssibl e di ffer ences ofo pi ni o n. ” Ja ckson , 348 F. 3d at 662.

III. The dis tr i ct c ourtco rr ect ly denie d Bynu m ’ s peti ti on f or a wri t of h ab ea s co rpus. Bynum ’ s cl ai m thathi s t ri al co uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve f o rf ai l i ngt o puthi m o n the st an d to te st ify a t h is s u p p re ss ion h ea rin g re q u ire d h im to s ho w bo ththa t co uns elwas i ne ffecti ve an d tha t co uns e l ’ s mi s t a k e s p r ej ud i c e d hi m . Al tho ugh we c o nc l ud e tha tc o un s e l wa s i ne ffe c t i v e , By nu m was n o tp r ej ud i c e d. T h e s ta te co u rt s ru led th at it w as n otr ea so n ab ly p ro b ab le that, had B yn u m te sti fi ed, he woul d have s ucceeded on hi s m oti on t o supp re ss. Thi s concl usi on was nei ther contr ary to S up re m e Cour t pr ecedent norbas ed on a n unr ea so nabl e det er m i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts i n l i g hto fthe ev i den ce pr es en te d a t B yn um ’ s tr i ala nd a t th e postco nvi cti on evi denti ar y hear i ng. The sta te cour t there

f o r e r ea so nably c onc l ude d tha t Byn um was no t pr ej udi ce d b y hi s a tto r ne y ’ s f ai l ur e to ha ve hi m t es ti fy a t th e supp re ssi on hea ri ng. A FFI RMED .
3- 27- 09