2007 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
11-30-2007 

# Goldblum v

. K le m P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1138

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_2007

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 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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

" Go ldb lum v

. K le m" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 149. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/149P 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. 06- 1138

C H A R L E S J
. G O L D B L U M, A ppel l ant

v . E D W A R D J. K L E M , S u p e rin ten d e n t, S C I M a h a n o y ; DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF AL L E GHE NY C OUNT Y, P E NNS YL VANI A; a n d T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T H E C O M M O N W E A L T H 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 04- cv- 00520) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r t hurJ
. Schw ab

A r gued J une 8, 2007 B E FO R E : SM I T H and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges , and

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge* ( Fi l ed: N ovember30, 2007)

*H onor abl e Loui s H
. Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2 D avi d R udovs ky( ar gued) K airy s, R u d o v sk y , M essin g & F einb erg 7 1 8 A rc h S tre e t, S u ite 5 0 1 S o u th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 L e e M a rk o v itz 310 G r antSt r eet , G r antB ui l di ng Sui t e 1220 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant S teph en A
. Z ap p ala, Jr. D i s t r i ctA t t or ney M ich a e l W . S tre ily D eputyD i s t r i ctA t t or ney R onal d M

. W abby , J r . ( ar gued) A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or ney O ffi ce of t he D i s t r i ctA t t orney 436 G r antSt r eet 40 1 A l l egh enyC ou ntyC ou rtho use Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I
. I NT RO DUC T I ON T h is m att er is be fo re the co u rto n C h arles J. G o ldb lum ’s appea l fr om t he deni al of hi s s econd pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . G ol dbl um , w ho i s curr ent l ys ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on forfi r s t
- degr ee mur der , fi l ed hi s s econd pet i t i on aft err ece i vi ng ourauthor i zat i on t o do s o under28 U
. S. C
. § 2244( b) ( 3) ( A )

. T he di s t r i ctcour t , i n adopt i ng a m agi s t r at e j udge’ s R epor tand R ecomm endat i on, di s m i s s ed the3 s econd pe t i t i on bas ed on G ol dbl um ’ s fai l ur e t o s at i s fythe re q u ir e m e n ts a p p lic a b le to s e c o n d p e titio n s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( b) ( 4) and i t s pr edec es s or , the abus e- of- t he- w r i tdoctr i ne, w hi ch as w e w i l l di s cus s , w as i m pl i cat ed bec aus e G ol dbl um fi l ed hi s fi r s thabea s corpus appl i cat i on befor e the ena ctm entof t he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ctof 1996 (“ A E D P A ” ). G ol dbl um bel i eves thatthe magi s t r at e j udge err ed i n t hr ee w a y s: s h e (1 ) w a s re q u ire d to c o n d u c t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g to det erm i ne w hetherhe abus ed the w r i t ; ( 2) appl i ed the w r ong l egal s t andar d undert he “c aus e” e l ementof the abus e- of- t hew r i tdoctr i ne; and ( 3) w r ongl yfound thatG ol dbl um i s not “ac tual l yi nnocent ” of the murde rforw hi ch he ha s been c o n v icte d , w h ich a c tu a l in n o c e n c e w o u ld h a v e e x c u se d h is noncompl i ance w i t h t he pr ocedur es or di nar i l yr equi r ed for habea s corpus pr ocee di ngs t o avoi d hi s pet i t i on bei ng barr ed by th e a b u se -o f

-th e -w rit d o c trin e . W e f in d G o ld b lu m ’s a rg u m e n ts u n p e rsu a siv e a n d th u s w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e d istric t co u rt, t her ebyuphol di ng t he di s m i s s al of hi s s econd ha beas a p p lic a tio n .

I I
. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY T h e e v e n ts a n d p ro c e d u ra l h isto rylea d in g u p to th is a p p e a l ar e q u ite c o m p lica ted a n d len g th y . W e th e re f o re w ill d is c u s s th e m o n ly as th e yre la te to th is a p p e a l. A
. T he U nd erl y i ng C on vict i on s A tG ol dbl um ’ s Penns y l vani a s t at e- cour ttr i al on char ges o f m u rd e r, ar so n , an d in su ra n c e f ra u d , the p ro se c u tio n p u t f o rth t he fol l ow i ng fac t s . I n 1974, C l ar ence M i l l erm etG eor ge W ilh e lm . A t th a t ti m e , the yd isc u ss e d W ilh e lm ’s in ter e st in p u rc h a sin g lan d in N o rth C a ro lin a o n w h ich W ilh e lm p lan n e d to s ear ch fors emi pr eci ous s t ones and gemst ones . M i l l er d isc o v e re d th a t th e lan d th a t W ilh e lm w a s in ter e ste d in p u rch asin g w as f

ed era l fo rest l an d an d w as n o t fo r sale. M il ler,T he r e i s n o tt h e s l i g h t e s ts u g g e s t i o n i n th e r e c o r d th a tt he 1 s enat ororany one on hi s s t aff had any i nvol vement i n t he s cheme. 4 how ever , t ol d W i l hel m thathe w oul d us e hi s “pol i t i cal co n n ec ti o n s” to assist him to p u rch ase the lan d

. M il ler, how ever , di d nothave thes e s o- cal l ed “pol i t i cal connec t i ons . ” I ns t ead, he devi s ed a s cheme t o defr aud W i l hel m i n w hi ch he pl anned t o t el l W i l hel m thathe w oul d w or k outa s peci al p o lit ica l d e a l w ith th e h e lp o f a U n ited S tate s s e n a to r to o b tain t he governm ent
- ow ned l and. 1 M i l l er cont act ed T had deu s D edo and G oldbl um t o assi st hi m i n exec ut i ng t hi s fr aud. D edo, underG ol dbl um ’ s gui dance , i m per s onat ed an a ctual m emberof the s enat or ’ s s t aff , K en M anel l a, and made s ever al phone ca l l s t o W i l hel m confi r m i ng th e d e a l lea d in g W ilh e lm to g iv e M ill e r a se rie s o f p a ym e n ts t ot al i ng appr oxi m at el y$20, 000 forthe cons i der at i on t o put t hr ough t he pur chas e. I n excha nge, M i l l ergave W i l hel m fake d e e d s to lan d in N o rth C a ro lin a th a t G o ld b lu m a p p a re n tly dr aft ed. T he s cheme began t o unr avel w hen W i l hel m w entt o t he se n a to r’s o f

f ice to m e e t w ith “ K e n M a n e lla.” W ilh e lm i m m edi at el ybeca m e s us pi ci ous thathe had be en def r auded w h e n th e re a l K e n M a n e lla a p p e a re d . W ilh e lm re p o rte d h is su sp ici o n s to the F ed era l B u rea u o f In v esti g ati o n . T h e F B I, how ever , t erm i nat ed i t s i nves t i gat i on w hen G ol dbl um and M i l l er per s uaded W i l hel m t o w i t hdr aw hi s compl ai nti n excha nge for G o ld b lu m ’s a n d M ill e r’s p ro m ise th a t W ilh e lm w o u ld g e t h is mo n e yb a c k

. W i l h e l m d i d wi t h d r a w i tb ya s s e r t i n g t o th e F BI t hathi s compl ai ntw as a hoax. T h e p lo t th e n th ick e n e d a s th e m o n e yto re p a yW ilh e lm w a s n o t re a d ilya v a ilab le. In o rd e r to ra ise th e m o n e y , W ilh e lm agr eed w i t h G ol dbl um t o par t i ci pat e i n an i ns ur ance fr aud s cheme i n w hi ch W i l hel m w oul d s etfi r e t o a r es t aur ant G o ld b lu m le a s e d a n d o p e ra te d , b u t G o ld b lu m ’s p a re n ts o w n e d

. In re tu rn , G o ld b lu m w a s to p a yW ilh e lm $ 3 ,5 0 0 in a d d iti o n to t he moneyt aken f

r om hi m i n t he l and fr aud. T he r es t aur ant5 b u rn e d to th e g ro u n d a s a re s u lt o f a rs o n o n N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 7 5
. G o ld b lu m p a id W ilh e lm $ 1 0 0 , b u t w h e n n o o n e p a id W ilh e lm t he r emai ni ng m oney , W i l hel m , w ho s ur el yw as nots hor tof nerve, began pr es s i ng G ol dbl um forpaym entand thr eat eni ng him t hat he w ou l d g o to the au t ho ri t i es. G ol dbl um , under s t andabl yi n vi ew of W i l hel m ’ s pr evi ous c o n tac t w ith th e F B I, o b v io u slyto o k W ilh e lm ’s th re a ts s e rio u sly foron February8, 1976, he t ol d M i l l erthathe i nt ended t o beat W i l hel m up t o di s cour age hi m fr om pr es s i ng hi m forthe debt p a ym e n t o r g o in g to th e a u th o rities . M ill e r a g re e d to a ss ist in t hi s pl an byl ur i ng W i l hel m t o t he t op fl oorof a pa r ki ng gar age i n excha nge for$50 and M i l l erdi d s o byt el l i ng W i l hel m that G ol dbl um had the moneyhe w as due. O n February9, 1976, the t hr ee of t hem, w i t h W i l hel m dr i vi ng, M i l l ers i t t i ng i n t he fr ont pas s engers eat , and G ol dbl um s i t t i ng i n t he bac k s eatbehi nd the d r i v e r , d r o v e t o t h e t o p f l o o ro f a p a r k i n g g a r a g e i n d o wn t o wn P itts b u rg h

. T hi s cas e r evol ves ar ound w hathappene d next , a mat t er i n s om e di s put e. M i l l ercont ended a tG ol dbl um ’ s tr i al that G ol dbl um s t ruck W i l hel m i n t he bac k of the hea d w i t h a w r ench and W i l hel m fel l outt he ca r , atw hi ch t i m e G ol dbl um began stab b ing h im w ith a g rass sh ea r blad e a n d W il h elm fe ll o v er a w al l

. G ol dbl um , on t he otherhand, cl ai m s thatM i l l erand W i l hel m goti nt o a fi ghtw hi l e i n t he ca r , l eadi ng t o t he s t abbi ng, f o llo w in g w h ich W ilh e lm o p e n e d h is d o o r to th e c a r a n d f e ll t o the g rou n d , at w h ich tim e M il ler fli p p ed h im o v er the w all

. In anyevent , G ol dbl um and M i l l erl eftthe s cene t ogetherand a g re e d th a t th e yw o u ld sa yth a t th e yo n lyh a d se e n W ilh e lm ear l i eri n t he eve ni ng, buttheyw er e notw i t h hi m atthe t i m e of th e m u rd e r. W ilh e lm w a s f

o u n d la te r t h a t n ig h t, c ryin g f o r h e lp

. W h e n p o l i c e a r r i v e d a tth e s c e n e , W i l h e l m s a i d t o th e m, “C laren ce M il ler did th is t o m e.” W il h elm d ied a fe w h o u rs l at er . T he pol i ce a r r es t ed M i l l erand w hen he, i n turn, i m pl i cat ed G ol dbl um , pol i ce a r r es t ed G ol dbl um as w el l

. G ol dbl um w as r el eas ed on bai l

. T he pol i ce, how ever , for tunat el yengage d i n a s ur vei l l ance of G ol dbl um , dur i ng w hi ch he w as obs ervedT h e a ll eg ati o n s relati n g to the p lan to m u rde r M il ler w ere 2 notpartof G ol dbl um ’ s s ubs equent i ndi ctm ent
. I t i s uncl earfr om t he r ecor d i f the C om m onw eal t h everchar ged G ol dbl um i n t he s cheme t o m ur der M i l l er . M or eover , the as s i s t antdi s t r i ctatt orney ator al ar gum entw as unaw ar e i f the di s tr i ctat t orneyhad br ought char ges agains tG ol dbl um i n t he M i l l ers cheme or , i f ther e had b e e n s u c h c h a r g e s , wh e th e rGo l d b l u m h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f t h e m. G ol dbl um ’ s t r i al att orneyw ant ed t o ar gu e t hatG ol dbl um 3 w a s, a t m o st, g u iltyo f in v o lu n tar ym a n sl a u g h ter b a se d o n h is pr es ence att he s cene of the murde rand hi s fai l ur e t o pr eventM i l l er fr om s t abbi ng W i l hel m . T h o u g h the tr i al j udge agr eed thatthat a rg u m e n t ad v a n c e d a v iab le d e f e n se , G o ld b lu m d id n o t w a n t to pur s ue i tand, on t he re cor d, w ai ved t he pre s ent at i on of t he def ens e. 6 a rr a n g in g f

o r M ille r’ s m u rd e r w ith a n u n d e rc o v e r d e te c tiv e . C ons equent l y , t heyarr es t ed G ol dbl um on a cha r ge forthatnew o f f e n s e a n d re tu rn e d h im to ja il. T he author i t i es fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tG ol dbl um i n t he C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s o f

A lleg h e n yC o u n tyc h a rg in g h im w ith m ur derand vol unt arym ans l aught erof W i l hel m , cr i m i nal cons pi r acyi n r el at i on t o t he fr audul entl and dea l , and ar s on and cr i m i nal s ol i ci t at i on t o comm i tar s on of the r es t aur ant
. T hey 2 a ls o c h a rg e d M ille r i n th e s ta b b in g d e a th o f W ilh e lm

. G ol dbl um pr ocee ded t o tr i al

. T he pr os ecut i on ar gued that G o ld b lu m k ill e d W ilh e lm w ith th e m o tiv e to sile n c e h im r egar di ng t he ar s on t hattheyhad comm i t t ed. G ol dbl um , on t he ot herhand, ar gued thathe w as notgui l t yof anyt hi ng. T he 3 defe ns e foc us ed on M i l l er ’ s obvi ous l ys us pectcr edi bi l i t y , as he w as t he pr os ecut i on’ s centr al w i t nes s , as w el l as the phy s i cal evi dence t hat , acc or di ng t o G ol dbl um , t ended t o es t abl i s h t hat M i l l erdi d t he s t abbi ng. I n par t i cul ar , G ol dbl um ’ s at t orney arg u ed to the jurythat w h il e b loo d w as f o u n d o n M il ler’s ov ercoat , no blood w as fou nd on G oldbl um ’s cl othes. H e al so i nt r oduced c i r cumst ant i al evi dence r el at i ng t o t he patt ern of the bl ood s patt eron t he das hboar d of the ca rthatthe thr ee men had occupi ed, w hi ch s ugges t ed thatthe per s on s i t t i ng t o t he r i ghtof W ilh e lm , i.e ., M ille r, n o t th e p e rs o n in th e b a c k s e a t, i.e .,A t a s e p a r a t e t r i a l , a j u r yc o n v i c t e d M i l l e ro f f i r s t
- d e g r ee 4 m u rd e r a s a n a c c o m p lic e . 7 G o ld b lu m , d id th e sta b b in g . H is a tto rn e ya lso in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e W ilh e lm ’s d y in g d e c lar a tio n th a t “C lar e n c e M ill e r d id t hi s t o m e. ” T he courti ns t ruct ed the j uryboth on the theorythat G ol dbl um w as gui l t yof m ur deri n t he fi r s tdegr ee f orthe di r ect as s aul tand the theorythathe w as an ac compl i ce t o m ur deri n t he f irst d e g re e . O n A u g u st 3 0 , 1 9 7 7 , a ju ryf o u n d G o ld b lu m g u ilty of m ur deri n t he fi r s tdegr ee f orthe dea t h of W i l hel m , as w el l as cons pi r acyt o comm i tt heftbydece pt i on, ar s on, and cr i m i nal so licita tio n to c o m m it ars o n . T h e c o u rt d id n o t as k th e ju ryto 4 d e ter m in e w h e th e r G o ld b lu m d ire c tlyp a rticip a ted in th e a ss a u lt orw as an ac compl i ce t o M i l l er ’ s act i on, and the j urydi d not m a k e a f in d in g o n th is p o in t. T h e c o u rt se n ten c e d G o ld b lu m to l i fe i n pr i s on on t he murde rconvi ct i on and an a ddi t i onal 15 t o 30 y e a rs im p ri s o n m e n t f

o r t h e o th e r o f

f e n s e s . G ol dbl um w as uns ucce s s ful on hi s di r ectappea l dur i ng w hi ch he a r gued thatM i l l ers uffe r ed fr om or gani c br ai n damage t hati m pact ed on hi s abi l i t yt o di s t i ngui s h fac tfr om fi ct i on. See C o m m o n w e a lth v . G o ld b lu m , 4 2 7 A .2 d 2 5 8 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1980) ( Super i orC our taff i r m i ng convi ct i ons exce ptcons pi r acy co u n t) , rev ’d in p art, 4 4 7 A
. 2 d 2 3 4 (P a. 19 8 2 ) (Su p rem e C o u rt r ever s i ng Super i orC our ton cons pi r acycountand af fi r m i ng ot herconvi ct i ons )

. T he s t at e court s s i m i l ar l ydeni ed hi s pet i t i on f o r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f

. B
. G ol dbl um ’ s Fi r s tFeder al H abea s C orpus Pet i t i on G oldbl um subsequ entl ysoug ht r el i ef i n the federal cou rt s, fi l i ng hi s fi r s tpet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he di s t r i ct courton J ul y14, 1989. I n t hatpet i t i on, he pr es ent ed the foll ow i ng t w o clai m s: 1. W hethert he deni al of [G ol dbl um ’ s ] pr etr i al appl i cat i on forps y chi atr i c exa m i nat i on of8 the p rose cu ti o n ’s on lyey ew itn ess [ M il ler], coupl ed w i t h t he deni al of hi s m ot i on for[a] new t r i al bas ed on af

t erdi s cover ed evi dence pr ovi di ng a bas i s forat t acki ng the cr edi bi l i t yof thatw i t nes s , t ogetherdeni ed [G ol dbl um ] due pr oces s underthe F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. 2. W hethert he admi s s i on i nt o evi dence of the out
- of- cour tdecl ar at i ons of W i l hel m that [G ol dbl um ] had part i ci pat ed i n t he l and f ra u d a n d th a t W ilh e lm h a d p a rticip a ted in t he ar s on of G ol dbl um ’ s r es t aur antdepr i ved hi m of hi s r i ghtt o confr ontthe w i t nes s es agai ns thi m guar ant eed bythe Si xth and Four t eenth A m endment s t o t he U ni t ed S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on on t he mer i t s , fol l ow i ng w hi ch on G ol dbl um ’ s appea l w e af fi r m ed the or derof the di s t r i ctcourtw i t houta publ i s hed opi ni on on N ovember26, 1991. G ol dbl um v. Ful comer , 950 F. 2d 722 ( 3d C i r . 1991) (t ab le). T h e S u p rem e C o u rtd en ied G o ldb lum ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r a w r i tof ce r t i or ar i on A pr i l 27, 1992. G ol dbl um v. Ful comer , 503 U .S . 1 0 0 5 , 1 1 2 S .C t. 1 7 6 0 (1 9 9 2 ). C
. B a c k to th e S tate C o u rts A ft ert he compl et i on of the uns ucce s s ful habea s corpus p r o c e e d i n g s , Go l d b l u m r e tu r n e d t o th e s t a t e c o u r t s , th i s t i me f ili n g a p e tit io n f

o r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief u n d e r th e P o stC o n v ictio n R e lief

A c t (“ P C R A ” ) o n Ja n u a ry1 2 , 1 9 9 6 , w h e re in he r ai s ed a l i t anyof i s s ues , i ncl udi ng the di s coveryof evi dence re latin g to f

o re n sic p ro o f

o f b lo o d sp a tter, M ill e r’s a lleg e d p o sttrial c o n f e ss io n s, a n d in e f

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

c o u n se l re latin g to t he fa i l ur e of hi s t r i al at t orneyt o i nves t i gat e evi dence pert ai ni ng to th e b lo o d sp a tter a n d p re se n t th e e x p e rt tes tim o n yo f D r. C yrilD r . W echt w as t he cor onerof A l l eghenyC ount yw hen 5 W ilh e lm w a s m u rd e re d in 1 9 7 6 b u t h e w a s n o t in v o lv e d in th is c a se a t th e tim e o f

th e m u rd e r a n d d id n o t su p e rv ise it.

9 W echt , a for ens i c pathol ogi s t , w ho w oul d have t es t i fi ed that

5 bas ed on the phy s i cal evi dence G ol dbl um coul d nothave be en t h e a s s a i l a n t
. I n s u p p o r to f th i s p h ys i c a l e v i d e n c e th e o r y, G o ld b lu m f

iled D r. W e c h t’s a f

f id a v it i n w h ich h e “ c o n c lu d e d to a r eas onabl e degr ee of

m edi cal cert ai ntythatM r . G ol dbl um w as n o t th e ind ividu al w h o inf li cted the f

atal st ab w o u n d s to M r. W i l hel m . ” A pp. at21. D r . W echtbas ed thi s concl us i on s ubs t ant i al l yon t he l ocat i on of the bl ood s pat t eron t he d a s h b o a rd , a s w e ll a s th e la c k o f b lo o d o n G o ld b lu m ’s c lo th e s . In addit i on , G oldbl um subm i t t ed tw o o t her exp ertw i t nesses’ a f f id a v its e x p re s s in g o p in io n s s im ila r t o th o s e o f D r. W e c h t. G ol dbl um s ubs equent l yadded a cl ai m t o hi s pet i t i on thathi s tr i al att o rne yw as in ef

fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to o b

ject t o the tri al co u rt ’s in s tru c tio n o n a c c o m p lic e lia b ility. O n February12, 1997, the s t at e courtdi s m i s s ed the p e tit io n w ith o u t h o ld in g a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g , fin d in g th a t all of the cl ai m s G ol dbl um r ai s ed ei t herhad bee n l i t i gat ed p rev iou slyo r w ere too o ld to b e c o n side red

. O n G o ldb lum ’s a p p e a l, th e S u p e rio r C o u rt a f f irm e d , co n c lu d in g th a t all h is cl ai m s w er e w ai ved, pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed, orm er i t l es s , exce ptthe claim that h is tri al att o rne yw as in ef fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to ca ll D r. W echtas a w i t nes s att he tr i al

. T he Super i orC our tr emanded t he ca s e t o t he tr i al cour tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng s ol el yon t hat is s u e . T he tr i al courthel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on O ct ober18, O ct ober19, and D ece m ber19, 2000. T he fi r s tw i t nes s w as G ol dbl um ’ s t r i al at t or ney , H
. D avi d R othm an. R othm an t es t i fi ed t hathe di d notconductan i nves t i gat i on w i t h r es pectt o t he bl ood s patt erevi dence beca us e “the pol i ce di d notphot ogr aph or pr es erve the bl ood s pat t er s thatw er e found on the das hboar d of M r. W il h elm ’s ca r. ” H e h ad n o t con su lt ed a p atho log istb ef o re t he tr i al beca us e he be l i eved, bas ed on the l i t er atur e he ha d s een, t hatt he evi dence t hatcoul d be deve l oped w oul d have be enW e w ill d isc u ss th e tes tim o n y o f D r. W e c h t in g re a ter d e tail 6 l at er . See i nfr a at43- 47. 10 u n re liab le. T h e re f

o re , R o th m a n a rg u e d a t trial, w ith o u t th e a id of expe r tt es t i m ony , t hatbas ed on the ci r cumst ant i al phy s i cal evi dence s how i ng t hatt he bl ood s pat t erw enti n t he di r ect i on of M ille r, M ille r w a s th e k ille r. D r . W echtt es t i fi ed next , and on di r ectexami nat i on, he ex p o u n d ed u p o n h is aff idav it

. O n cro ss-ex am ination , h o w ev er, he conc eded thatt her e w er e otherpos s i bl e fa ctual s cena r i os that w o u ld ex p lai n the p att ern o f th e b loo d sp att ering

. T h e c o u rt 6 r efus ed t o t ake t es t i m onyfr om the otherfor ens i c expe r t s w ho w oul d have s uppor t ed D r . W echt ’ s opi ni on, and al s o w oul d not t ake the t es t i m onyof an e xper ti n pol i ce i nves t i gat i on w ho w as cr i t i cal of the l ack of

phot ogr aphs of the das hboar d and an att o rne yw h o w o u ld h av e testi fied as to the a cti o n s G o ldb lum ’s tr ia l a tto rn e ys h o u ld h a v e ta k e n to in v e s tig a te th is c a s e . T he C om m onw eal t h pr es ent ed a r ebut t al w i t nes s , T oby W ol s on, a for ens i c bi ol ogi s templ oy ed bythe M i ami

- D ade F lo rid a P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, w h o w a s te stif y in g in d e p e n d e n tly fr om t hatr el at i ons hi p as a for ens i c cons ul t ant
. W ol s on t es t i fi ed th a t th e lim ited d e sc rip tio n o f th e b lo o d sp a tter p re v e n ted b o th D r . W echtand hi m fr om r eac hi ng a r el i abl e conc l us i on as t o t he i dent i t yof the as s ai l ant
. D et ect i ve R on Fr eeman had bee n t he onl yw i t nes s att he tr i al w ho expl ai ned the l ocat i on of the bl ood sp a tter. F re e m a n tes tifie d a t th e trial th a t: W hen I s aw t her e w er e a s m al l l i ne of bl ood dr opl et s , and i tw as nota l otof bl ood t her e, but t heyw er e di s cernabl e dr opl et s and theys t art ed on th e – to w a rd th e d riv e r’s sid e w a s th e lar g e st s p o t, and then theydes cende d i nt o s m al l erci r cl es , and e a c h c irc le h a s w h a t is c a lled ‘a tail’ a n d th e ‘ta il’ w as fac i ng t ow ar d t he pas s engers i de of the a u t o mo b i l e a n d th a ti n d i c a t e d th a tb l o o d c a me fr om l eftt o r i ght , as I fac ed i tortr avel ed fr om the d ri v er’s side o f th e a u tom o b il e to th e p asse n g er’s11 s i de of the aut om obi l e. O n A ugus t22, 2001, the s t at e courti s s ued an opi ni on and or derdeny i ng G ol dbl um PC R A r el i ef, hol di ng: [T]hi s C our ti s m i ndful thatno phot ogr aphs or ot herevi dence of the bl ood s t ai n exi s t ed. T he t es t i m onyof both D r . W echtand M r . W ol s on w as p rem ised o n the f

ac t th at D etec ti v e F ree m an ’s b rie f d e sc rip tio n [ a t th e trial] o f th e b lo o d sta in w as acc ur at e. A r evi ew of the t es t i m onypr es ent ed ind icated that b o th ex p erts w ere h esit an t t o d ec lare t hei rfi ndi ngs abs ol ut e w i t houtbei ng abl e t o s ee th e b lo o d sta in in q u e stio n . A lth o u g h th e e x p e rts di d m ake t ent at i ve fi ndi ngs , thei rt es t i m ony e ss e n tiallya m o u n ted to sp e c u latio n d u e to th e ir i nab i l i t yt o m ake co nclusi ve findings. A pp. at265- 66. T he courtexpl ai ned i t s deci s i on t o excl ude the ot herpot ent i al w i t nes s es on t he bas i s thatthe l i m i t ed s cope of th e re m a n d d id n o t g iv e it a u th o ri ty to h e a r t h a t te s tim o n y . G ol dbl um appea l ed, buton O ct ober24, 2002, the Super i orC our taff

i r m ed the deni al of PC R A r el i ef, concl udi ng that d u e to th e “ fu n d am en tal lyinco n clus ive” n ature o f D r. W echt ’ s t es t i m ony , t he courtcoul d notconcl ude thatthe out come of t he tr i al w oul d have be en di ffe r enthad D r . W echt t es t i fi ed att he tr i al

. I d. at280. T he Super i orC our tal s o found t hatt he PC R A court ’ s deci s i on t o l i m i tthe t es t i m onybas ed on t he s cope of

t he r emand w as pr oper . Subse quentpet i t i ons foran al l ow ance of appe al i n t he Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a, C om m onw eal t h v. G ol dbl um , 825 A
. 2d 637 ( Pa. 2003) , and for a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri w ith th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt, G ol dbl um v. Penns y l vani a, 540 U
. S. 1119, 124 S. C t
. 1067 (2 0 0 4 ), w e re d e n ie d

. D
. G oldbl um ’s S econ d F ederal H abeas C orpus Pet i t i on and A ppeal O n February26, 2004, G ol dbl um fi l ed a mot i on w i t h us12 s eeki ng author i zat i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 2244( b) ( 3) t o fi l e a s econd pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , w hi ch w e gr ant ed on M ar ch 29, 2004. G ol dbl um pr om pt l yfi l ed hi s s econd appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he di s t r i ctcour ton A pr i l 2, 2004, as s ert i ng t he fol l ow i ng cl ai m s as r eca s tbefor e the m agi s t r at e j udge: 1
. T ria l co u n se l (a s w e ll as su c c e ss o r sta te c o u n se l) w e re in e f

f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to i nves t i gat e, pr es erve and pr oduce vi t al s ci ent i fi c evi dence of bl ood s pat t erthat w oul d have pr oven thatthe C om m on w eal t h’s pr i ncipal w i t ness, C l ar ence M i l l er , w as the per s on w ho s t a b b e d a n d k i l l e d th e v i c t i m, M r . W i l h e l m. 2
. T ria l co u n se l (a s w e ll as su c c e ss o r sta te couns el ) w as i neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ect t o t he s t at e tr i al cour t ’ s err oneous and pr ej udi ci al i ns t ruct i on r egar di ng acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t y . Speci fi cal l y , ther e w as no o b jec tio n to (a ) th e trial c o u rt’s f a ilu re to i ns t ructt he j urythati tcoul d notfi nd [G ol dbl um ] as an ac compl i ce unl es s they found bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat [ G o ld b lu m ] a c ted w ith th e sp e c if ic in ten t to ki l l i n act i ng as an ac compl i ce or( b) the t r i al court ’ s i ns t ruct i on t o t he j urythat C l ar ence M i l l erw as an ac compl i ce of [G o ldb lum ]. 3. T he tr i al cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i on t o t he j uryon a c c o m p lice liab ili tyw a s c o n stitu tio n a lly fl aw ed and de pr i ved [G ol dbl um ] of due p r o c e s s o f

l a w. 4. T he C om m onw eal t h’ s l os s and/ or des t ruct i on of the i nves t i gat i ve fi l es w as done i nt ent i onal l yand w i t h t he purpos e of depr i vi ng [G ol dbl um ] of evi dence that13 w oul d s uppor thi s l egal cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng hi s cl ai m of i nnocenc e, al l i n vi ol at i on of [ Go l d b l u m’ s ] r i g h tt o d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w. 5. N ew l ydi s cover ed evi dence r egar di ng the C om m on w eal t h’s pr i ncipal w i t ness, C l ar ence M i l l er , pr ovi des s t r ong pr oof that [G ol dbl um ] i s i nnocentof the cr i m e of m ur derand thatthe convi ct i on w as bas ed on per j ur ed t es t i m ony . M r . M i l l erhas admi t t ed s t abbi ng the vi ct i m and, w hi l e he con t i nu es t o insi stthat [G oldbl um ] w as al so i nvol ved, hi s admi s s i ons t o a W ar den and th e S tate A tto rn e yG e n e ra l ar e e n tirely inco n sist en t w ith h is tri al t esti m o n y , an d are s uppor t i ve of [ G ol dbl um ’ s ] cl ai m s of in n o c e n c e . In th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th is evi dence pr ovi des gr ounds fora new tr i al o n g r o u n d s o f

d u e p r o c e s s o f

l a w. 6. T he s t at e court s fai l ed t o pr ovi de [ G o ld b lu m ] w ith a f

u ll an d f a ir p o stconvi ct i on hear i ng on t hes e cl ai m s and th e re b yd e n ie d h im d u e p ro c e s s o f la w . A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at29. O n O ct ober28, 2005, a magi s t r at e j udge t o w hom the d istri ct co u rtassig n ed the m att er, w ith o u t ho lding an ev iden ti ary hear i ng, i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on di s m i s s i ng G ol dbl um ’ s s econd a ppl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus on t he pr ocedur al gr ound thati tdi d nots at i s fythe r equi r ement s for s econd pe t i t i ons . B as ed on ouropi ni on i n I n r e M i nar i k, 166 F .3 d 5 9 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), in w h ich w e d isc u ss e d th e re tro a c tiv ity of the A E D PA ’ s gat ekee pi ng pr ovi s i on, the magi s t r at e j udge exami ned G ol dbl um ’ s s econd appl i cat i on underboth s ect i on 2 2 4 4 o f th e A E D P A a n d its p re d e c e ss o r, th e a b u se -o f -th e -w rit do c t r i ne . She be ga n wi t h h e ra na l y s i s un de rthe A ED PAUn d e rs e c t i o n 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 4 ) , th e c o u r tmu s td i s mi s s th e c l a i ms 7 in the sec o n d p eti ti o n u n less theym ee t th e su b sta n tive stan d ard un der sect i on 22 44 (b) , w hich st at es: ( b) ( 1) A cl ai m pr es ent ed in a se cond ors ucce s s i ve habea s corpus appl i cat i on unders ect i on 2254 t hat w as pr es ent ed i n a p ri orappl i cat i on s hal l be di s m i s s ed. ( 2) A cl ai m pr es ent ed i n a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habea s corpus appl i cat i on unders ect i on 2254 t hat w as notpr es ent ed i n a p ri orappl i cat i on s hal l be dis m i ssed unless

– ( A ) the ap p l i cants how s t hatt he cl ai m r el i es on a n e w ru le o f

c o n stitu tio n a l law , m a d e re tro a c tiv e to cas es on col l at er al r evi ew by t he Supr eme Court , t hat w as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e; or ( B ) ( i ) t he fa ctual pr edi ca te forthe cl ai m coul d not have be en di s cover ed pr ev ious l ythr ough t he exer ci s e of due di l i gence ; and ( i i ) t h e fa ct s under l y i ng the cl ai m , i f pr oven and vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the evi dence as a w hol e, w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat , butforcons t i tuti o n al err or , no r eas onabl e fa ctfind er w o u ld h av e f o u n d the a p p li cant g u ilty o f th e u n d e rl y in g o f

f e n s e . 14 s t andar d found i n 28 U
. S. C
. § 2244( b) , and r ecomm ended 7 di s m i s s al of G ol dbl um ’ s s i x cl ai m s beca us e G ol dbl um ei t her had pr es ent ed them i n hi s fi r s thabea s corpus appl i cat i on, thus r equi r i ng t hei rdi s m i s s al unders ect i on 2244( b) ( 1) , orhe had not pr es ent ed them, and the cl ai m s di d notr el yon a new rul e of cons t i tut i onal l aw orm eetthe tw o- par ts t andar d of s ect i on 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( B ).15 T he magi s t r at e j udge nextanal y zed the cl ai m s underthe p re -A E D P A sta n d a rd “ to d e ter m in e if th e re [ w a s] a c o n f

lict” betw een pr e- and pos t
- A D E A s t andar ds i n w hi ch eve ntthe c laim s, if a n y , the p re -A E D P A re g im e d id n o t b a r w o u ld h a v e to be addr es s ed on thei rm er i t s i n or dert o ci r cumvent“a r e t r oa c t i vi t yi s s ue ” w i t h r e s pe c tt o the a pp l i c a t i on of the A ED PA

. W e di s cus s t hi s r etr oact i vi t ypr obl em i n det ai l bel ow . T he m ag istrate jud g e se t fo rth the a b u se-o f-the -w ri t st an d ard di s cus s ed i n M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d 591, i n w hi ch w e conc l uded that th e re is a n a b u se o f

th e w rit p re c lu d in g c laim s p re se n ted in s econd pe t i t i ons unl es s ( a) pet i t i oneres t abl i s hes “ca us e” f ornot i ncl udi ng t he cl ai m i n t he fi r s tpet i t i on and “pr ej udi ce, ” or( b) t her e w oul d be a “ fundament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce” i f the c laim is n o t re v iew e d o n its m e rits. S h e h e ld th a t G o ld b lu m d id n o t es tab lish “ c a u se ” f

o r h is f a ilu re to p re se n t h is f

irst c laim ( i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r el at i ng t o t he bl ood s pat t er evi dence ) i n t he or i gi nal habea s corpus pet i t i on, norw as ther e a fundament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce a s ther e w as no phy s i cal evi dence depi ct i ng t he bl ood s pat t erw hi ch w oul d have a l l ow ed couns el t o pur s ue the def ens e. She gave a pr es um pt i on of c o rre c tn e ss to th e P C R A c o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s, re b u ttab le o n ly b yclea r an d co n v incin g ev iden ce u n d er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1), w i t h r es pectt o t he s t at e court ’ s concl us i on as t o t he s p e c u la tiv e n e s s o f

D r. W e c h t’ s te s tim o n y . T he magi s t r at e j udge al s o r efus ed t o gr antG ol dbl um an evi dent i aryhear i ng under28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( e) ( 2) , as s he found t h a tt h e s t a t e c o u r th a d d e v e l o p e d th e f a c tu a l b a s i s o f

h i s c l a i ms s uffi ci ent l yi n conduct i ng a l engthyhear i ng on t he i s s ue of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance and the s t at e- cour tr ecor d i ncl uded ex tens ive e x h ibit s. S h e f u rth er c o n clud ed that ev en if D r. W echt ’ s t es t i m onyhad bee n i ntr oduced a ttr i al , i tcert ai nl yw as not“out come det erm i nat i ve” i n l i ghtof the overw hel m i ng evidence o f gu i l ti m pli cat i ng G oldbl um i n the m urder, and thu s, th e re w a s n o m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . T he magi s t r at e j udge conc l uded w i t h r es pectt o t he s econd a nd t hi r d cl ai m s ( i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r el at i ng t o hi s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he j uryi ns t ruct i on r egar di ng acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t y ) , t hatther e w as no “ca us e” a s the l aw16 governi ng t he i ns t ruct i on w as know n atthe t i m e thatG ol dbl um fi l ed hi s or i gi nal habea s corpus pet i t i on. N orw as ther e a “ m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e ” in w h ich th e a lleg e d e rro r “ p ro b a b ly r es ul t ed i n t he convi ct i on of one w ho i s actual l yi nnocent ” as the j ur ychar ge s uffi ci ent l yi nform ed the j urythats peci fi c i nt entw as r equi r ed t o convi ctforfi r s t
- degr ee mur deron acc om pl i ce l i a b i l i t y. Si m i l ar l y , as t o t he fi fth cl ai m ( M i l l er ’ s admi s s i ons ) , the m agi s t r at e j udge found thatther e w as no “ac tual pr ej udi ce” as M i l l e r ’ s o u t
- o f

- c o u r td e c l a r a t i o n , wh i c h we wi l l d e s c r i b e b e l o w, d id n o t exo n era te G o ldb lum

. In f ac t, M il ler co n ti n u es to asse rt t hatG ol dbl um part i ci pat ed i n t he ki l l i ng, al t hough M i l l ernow admi t s t hathe, t oo, i nfl i ct ed s om e of the w ounds

. T he m ag istrate jud g e a lso rec o m m en d ed d ism issal of G o ldb lum ’s four t h and s i xt h cl ai m s fors i m i l arr eas ons , butw e nee d not el abo rat e on t his reas on i ng as this app eal do es not focus on these c la im s . B as ed on herconcl us i ons thatnei t herthe A E D PA northe p re-A E D P A ab u se-o f-the -w ri t do ctri n e p erm itted G o ldb lum ’s s econd a ppl i cat i on, t he magi s t r at e j udge r ecomm ended thatthe c o u rt d ism iss G o ld b lu m ’s s e c o n d p e tit io n a n d th a t a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i t y( “C O A ”) notbe i s s ued. O n D ece m ber13, 2005, the d istri ct co u rtissue d an o rde r ad o p ti n g the m ag istrate jud g e’s R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n a s th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, di s m i s s i ng t he pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , and deny i ng t h e CO A. G ol dbl um appea l ed on J anuary12, 2006. O n N ovember 6, 2006, w e i s s ued a CO A l i m i t ed t o t he fol l ow i ng ques t i on: [W ] hethert he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng t hatG ol dbl um ’ s habea s pet i t i on cons t i tut es an abus e of the w r i t , as G ol dbl um has s how n t hat r eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d debat e notonl yw hether t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ecti n t hatpr ocedur al ru lin g b u t als o w h e th e r h is p e tit io n sta tes a v a lid cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . See Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U
. S
. 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 , 1 2 0 S
. C t. 1 5 9 5 , 1 6 0 4 (20 0 0 ).17 A pp. at3. G ol dbl um ’ s centr al ar gum ent s on t hi s appea l ar e thatthe m agi s t r at e j udge, and thus the di s t r i ctcour t , err ed i n t he fol l ow i ng t hr ee w ay s : s he ( 1) w as r equi r ed t o conductan evi dent i aryhear i ng t o det erm i ne w hetherG ol dbl um abus ed the w r i t ; ( 2) appl i ed the w r ong l egal s t andar d underthe “c aus e” el ementof the abus e- of- t he- w r i tdoctr i ne; and ( 3) w r ongl yfound t hatG ol dbl um i s notactual l yi nnocentof the murde rforw hi ch he has been c onvi ct ed, thus excus i ng hi s pr ocedur al n o n c o m p lia n c e u n d e r t h e a b u s e -o f -t h e -w ri t d o c tr in e .

I I I
. J UR I SDI CTI ON AN D STA ND AR D O F REVI EW Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S
. C. §§ 2241 and 2254( a)

. U pon i s s ui ng a l i m i t ed C O A on N o v em b er 6 , 2 0 0 6 , “o n the q u esti o n w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed i n concl udi ng t hatG ol dbl um ’ s habea s pet i t i on cons t i tut es an abus e of the w r i t , ” w e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al of th a t s p e c if

ic is s u e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3
. I ti s appr opr i at e atthi s t i m e t o comm enton t he s cope of t he C O A t hatw e i s s ued. T he di s t r i ctcour t , byadopt i ng the m agi s t r at e j udge’ s R epor tand R ecomm endat i on as the opi ni on of the court , di s m i s s ed G ol dbl um ’ s s econd ha beas appl i cat i on on t he pr ocedur al gr ound thatthe A E D PA and i t s pr edec es s or , the abus e- of- t he- w r i tdoctr i ne, barr ed hi s pet i t i on. I tdi d notr eac h t he mer i t s of G ol dbl um ’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s , nordi d i thave t he author i t yt o do s o unt i l i tfi r s tdet erm i ned w hether G o ld b lu m ’s a p p lic a tio n s a tis f ie d s e c tio n 2 2 4 4 ’s re q u ir e m e n ts
. S e e Be n c h o f

f v . Co l l e r a n , 4 0 4 F
. 3 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. At t i me s , t h e ma g i s t r a t e j u d g e wa s c o mp e l l e d t o a d d r e s s s o me i s s ues r el at i ng t o t he mer i t s of G ol dbl um ’ s cl ai m s i nas m uch as t heyw er e i m pl i cat ed i n t he det erm i nat i on of w hether G ol dbl um ’ s cl ai m s m etthe thr es hol d A E D PA and abus e- of- t hew r i ts econd pe t i t i on s t andar ds , part i cul ar l yhi s cl ai m s of ac tual i nnocenc e. T hi s i nqui r y , how ever , does nott ake f r om our concl us i on t hatt he di s tr i ctcour t , byadopt i ng the R epor tand18 R ecomm endat i on, di s m i s s ed the s econd pe t i t i on on pr ocedur al g ro u n d s . T hus , w e r ei t er at e thaton N ovember6, 2006, w e i s s ued a CO A: [O ] n t he ques t i on w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng t hatG ol dbl um ’ s habea s pet i t i on cons t i tut es an abus e of the w r i t , as G ol dbl um has s how n t hatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d debat e not onl yw hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ecti n t hat pr ocedur al rul i ng butal s o w hetherhi s pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . See Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U
. S. 473, 484, 120 S. C t
. 1595, 1 6 0 4 (2 0 0 0 ). I twa s c e r t a i n l ywi t h i n o u rd i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n tth e l i mi t e d CO A u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(3 ), in a sm u c h a s th e d istric t co u rt in t he fi r s ti ns t ance s houl d m ake a m er i t s anal y s i s of a ha beas corpus pet i t i on i f one i s t o be made. Go l d b l u m, n e v e r t h e l e s s , c o n t e n d s i n h i s b r i e f th a twe “gr ant ed the C O A on t he abus e of the w r i tques t i on as w el l as th e v a lid ityo f

th e c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s.” A p p e llan t’s b r. at 7 n. 2. H e ur ges t hat“no r emand i s nece s s aryas the evi dence of in e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f

c o u n s e l c a n n o t b e d is p u te d .” Id . a t 2 9
. Go l d b l u m m i s u n d e r s t a n d s o u rCO A. I ti s c l e a rth a twe issue d o u r C O A o n ly“o n the q u esti o n w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed i n concl udi ng t hatG ol dbl um ’ s habea s pet i t i on cons t i tut es an abus e of the w r i t
. ” Though w e al s o s t at ed thatthe ques t i on w a s w h e th e r “ G o ld b lu m h a s s h o w n th a t re a so n a b le ju rists w o u ld debat e notonl yw hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ecti n t hat p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g b u t als o w h e th e r h is p e tit io n sta tes a v a lid c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m, ” t h a tl a n g u a g e i n n o wa ys u g g e s t s th a twe g ra n te d a C O A o n th e m e ri ts o f th e c o n s titu tio n a l is s u e s . R ather , Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U
. S. 473, 484, 120 S. C t
. 1595, 1604 ( 2000) , r equi r ed us t o m ake thatfi ndi ng as i thel d:19 W hen the di s t r i ctcour tdeni es a habe as pet i t i on on p roc ed u ral gro u n d s w ith o u t r ea ch ing the p ri so n er’s u n d e rly in g c o n stitu tio n a l cla im , a C O A sh o u ld iss u e w h e n th e p riso n e r sh o w s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. T h e p u rp o se o f

th is ru le is to e f

f e c tu a te ju d icia l ef

f icie n c ya s it w o u ld b e a w a ste o f

th e c o u rts’ a n d th e lit ig a n ts’ re so u rc e s to gr anta C O A on a pr ocedur al i s s ue w i t houta pr el i m i naryr evi ew of the under l y i ng cl ai m s , fori f the cl ai m s ar e obvi ous l yw i t hout m e rit an d d ism iss a l o f

th e p e tit io n in e v itab lyw o u ld b e th e re su lt even i f the pet i t i onerover came t he pr ocedur al hur dl es fac i ng hi m , t hen furt herr evi ew of the pr ocedur al i s s ue w oul d be poi nt l es s . Fort hi s r eas on, w e mustm ake a pr el i m i naryr evi ew of the under l y i ng cl ai m s even i f w e ar e gr ant i ng a C O A on t he pr ocedur al i s s ue onl y . B utcert ai nl yi n s uch s i tuat i ons w e ar e not gr ant i ng r evi ew of the mer i t s of the pet i t i on, and s houl d w e fi nd in f a v o r o f th e a p p lica n t o n th e p ro c e d u ra l issu e , w e w o u ld r emand t he mat t ert o t he di s t r i ctcour tt o addr es s the mer i t s of t he ca s e. T hus , i n t hi s cas e w her e w e gr ant ed a CO A onl yon t he issue o f w h ethe r G o ldb lum ab u sed the w ri t and b ec au se “ [w ]e m aynotcons i deri s s ues on appea l thatar e notw i t hi n t he s cope of the [CO A ] , ” w e w i l l notcons i derthe mer i t s of the under l y i ng cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . See V i l l otv. V arner , 373 F. 3d 327, 337 n . 1 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); see also 3 d C ir

. L
. A
. R
. 2 2
. 1 (b). I f w e w ere to f in d in f a v o r o f G o ld b lu m o n th e p ro c e d u ra l issu e , w e w o u ld r emand t he ca s e t o t he di s t r i ctcour tt o cons i derthe mer i t s of the s ubs t ant i ve cl ai m s . O f cour s e, t o t he ext entthatw e mustt ake a pr el i m i naryl ook att he mer i t s of the cl ai m s i n t he cont extof the ab u se-o f-the -w ri t determ ination , w e w il l do so . S ee In re W ill iam s, 3 3 0 F .3 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 2 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ W h ile th is det erm i nat i on [unders ect i on 2244] m ayent ai l a cur s orygl ance att he mer i t s –forexampl e, an appl i cantcannots how thathe w o u ld n o t hav e b ee n co n v ict ed ‘bu t fo r co n sti tuti o n al error’20 w i t houtadequa t el yal l egi ng s om e cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on–t he focus of the i nqui r ym us tal w ay s r emai n on the § 2244( b) ( 2) s ta n d a rd s .” ) . W e re v iew d istric t co u rt ru lin g s o n th e a b u se -o f -th e -w rit d o ctri n e d e n o v o . S ee Z ay as v . IN S , 3 1 1 F
. 3 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 2 (3d C ir

. 2002)

. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o denyan evi dent i aryhear i ng forabus e of di s cr et i on. See Schr i r o v. L an d ri g an , 1 2 7 S
. C t. 1 9 3 3 , 1 9 3 9 (20 0 7 ).

I V. DI S CU S S I ON A
. L egal Fr amew or k of Second A ppl i cat i ons U nder t he A bu s e - of

- t he

- W r i tSt a nd a r d a nd the A ED PA Pr i ort o t he ena ctm entof the A E D PA i n 1996, the
“ d o c trin e o f

a b u se o f th e w rit d e f

in e [ d ] th e c irc u m sta n c e s in w hi ch fe der al court s decl i ne t o ent ert ai n a cl ai m pr es ent ed for t he fi r s tt i m e i n a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on fora w r i tof habea s corpus . ” M cC l es keyv. Z ant , 499 U
. S. 467, 470, 111 S. C t
. 1454, 1457 ( 1991)

. W hen G ol dbl um fi l ed hi s fi r s tfede r al habea s pet i t i on i n 1991, the l aw encompas s ed the abus e- of- t hew rit d o c trin e , w h ich p ro v id e d th a t a p e tit io n e r c o u ld p ro se c u te anothers uch pet i t i on onl yi f he c oul d “( 1) s how caus e for , and p re ju d ice f ro m , the o m iss io n o f

h is n e w c laim o r c laim s f ro m h is ear l i erpet i t i on ( i

. e. , t hathi s pr ocee di ng w oul d notcons t i tut e an ‘ abus e of the w r i t ’ ) , or( 2) demonstr at e ‘ actual i nnocenc e. ’ ” M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d at600. T he Supr eme C our ti n M cC l es keydi s cus s ed the meani ng of “c aus e” a nd “pr ej udi ce” pr ongs , and the “na r r ow exce pt i on” o f “ ac tual inn o ce n ce , ” a s w ell as th e b u rde n -shifti n g fra m ew o rk w h e n th e a b u s e -o f

-t h e -w ri t d o c tr in e is ra is e d

. W hen a pr i s onerfi l es a s econd ors ubs equent appl i cat i on, t he governm entbear s the bur den of pl eadi ng abus e of the w r i t
. T he governm ent s at i s fi es t hi s bur den i f, w i th cl ar i t yand21 p a r t i c u l a r i t y, i tn o t e s p e t i t i o n e r ’ s p r i o rw r i th i s t o r y, i dent i fi es t he cl ai m s thatappea rforthe fi r s tt i m e, and al l eges t hatpet i t i onerhas abus ed the w r i t
. T he bur den t o di s pr ove abus e then bec om es pet i t i oner ’ s . T o excus e hi s fai l ur e t o r ai s e the c laim e a rlier , h e m u st s h o w c a u se f o r f a ili n g to ra ise it an d p re

ju d ice th e re f

ro m a s th o se c o n c e p ts h a v e b e e n d e f

in e d in o u r p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt deci s i ons . T he pet i t i oner ’ s oppor tuni t yt o m eetthe bur den of c aus e and pr ej udi ce w i l l noti ncl ude an evi dent i aryhear i ng i f the di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i nes as a mat t erof l aw thatpet i t i onercannots at i s fythe s t andar d. I f pet i t i onercannots how caus e, the fai l ur e t o r ai s e the cl ai m i n an ea r l i erpet i t i on m ay n o n e th e les s b e e x c u se d if h e o r sh e c a n sh o w th a t a f u n d a m e n tal m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e w o u ld re su lt f r o m a f a i l u r e t o e n t e r t a i n th e c l a i m. M cC l es key , 499 U
. S. at494- 95, 111 S. C t
. at1470 ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). “C aus e” r equi r es “a s how i ng of s om e ext ernal i m pedi m entpr event i ng couns el fr om cons t ruct i ng orr ai s i ng the cl ai m . ” I d. at497, 111 S. C t
. at1472 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. “[T] he ques t i on i s w hetherpet i t i oner p o s s e s s e d , o r b yre a s o n a b le m e a n s c o u ld h a v e o b ta in e d , a s uffi ci entbas i s t o al l ege a cl ai m i n t he fi r s tpet i t i on and pur s ue t he mat t ert hr ough t he habe as pr oces s . ” I d. at498, 111 S. C t
. at 1 4 7 2 . A c c o rd in g ly , “[ i]f w h a t p e tit io n e r k n o w s o r c o u ld di s coverupon r eas onabl e i nves t i gat i on s uppor t s a cl ai m for re lief in a f e d e ra l h a b e a s p e tit io n , w h a t h e d o e s n o t k n o w is irre lev a n t. O m iss io n o f th e c laim w ill n o t b e e x c u se d m e re ly beca us e evi dence di s cover ed l at erm i ghtal s o have s uppor t ed or s t r engthened the cl ai m . ” I d. “O nce the pet i t i onerhas es t abl i s hed ca us e, he musts how actual pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om the err or s of w hi ch he compl ai ns . ” I d. at494, 111 S. C t
. at1470 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. “A ctual pr ej udi ce” m eans “not m er el yt hatt he err or s at[] tr i al cr eat ed a p o ss ib ili ty of pr ej udi ce,W e h a v e h e ld th a t th e A E D P A g a te k e e p in g sc h e m e d id 8 m or e t han “s i m pl y put i n s t atut ory form w hat M cC lesk ey h ad al r eadydefi n ed as ab us e of the w r i t
. ” Zay as , 311 F. 3d at257. In ste a d , rath e r th a n su p p lan tin g th e a b u se -o f -th e -w rit d o c trin e , to w hi ch t he Supr eme Courthas r efe r r ed as “a c om pl ex and e vol vi ng body of equi t abl e pr i nci pl es i nform ed and c ont r ol l ed byhi s t or i cal us age, s t atut or y devel opm ent s , and j udi ci al deci s i ons , ” Fel kerv. T urpi n, 518 U
. S
. 651, 664, 116 S. C t
. 2333, 2340 ( 1996) , the A E D P A b u ilto n th e d o c trin e . S e e Z a y a s, 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 2 5 7 . In th is r egar d, “the abus e of w r i tdoctr i ne r et ai ns vi abi l i t yas a means of det erm i ni ng w hen a pe t i t i on s houl d be dee m ed ‘ s econd or s ucce s s i ve’ undert he s t atut e, ” B enchof f , 404 F. 3d at 817, and vi ce 22 b u t th a t th e yw o rk e d to h is actual and s ubs t ant i al di s advant age, i nfec t i ng hi s ent i r e tr i al w i t h err orof cons t i tut i onal di m ens i ons . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Fr ady , 456 U
. S. 152, 170, 102 S. C t
. 1584, 1596 (19 8 2 ). S ee also F isch ett i v. Joh n so n , 3 8 4 F
. 3 d 1 4 0 , 1 5 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). E ven i f a pe t i t i onercannots how caus e and pr ej udi ce, “the fai l ur e t o r ai s e the cl ai m i n an ea r l i erpet i t i on m aynonethel es s be excus ed i f he ors he ca n s how thata funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce w oul d r es ul tfr om a fa i l ur e t o ent ert ai n t he cl ai m . ” M c C les k e y , 4 9 9 U .S . at 4 9 4 -9 5 , 1 1 1 S .C t. at 1 4 7 0 . A c o u rt, ho w ever, shou l d ex erci se this authori t yon l yi n a “n arr ow cl ass of ca s es , ” i

. e. , i n “extr aor di naryi ns t ance s w hen a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on pr obabl yhas caus ed the convi ct i on of one i nnocentof t he cr i m e. ” I d. at494, 111 S. C t
. at1470. “To est abl i s h t he req u isi te pro b ab il ity , the p eti ti o n er m u st sho w that itis m o re l i kel yt han nott hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed hi m i n l i gh tof

t he ne w e vi de nc e . ” Sc hl up v. D e l o, 51 3 U. S. 2 9 8 , 3 2 7 , 1 1 5 S
. C t. 8 5 1 , 8 6 7 (19 9 5 ). In 199 6, w hen t he A E D P A becam e effecti ve C on gress c ha ng e d the rul e s go ve rni ng s e c on d p e t i t i on s . The A ED PA i ns t i tut ed a “ gat ekee pi ng m echa ni s m ” w hi ch i m pos ed s t r i ct pr ocedur al r equi r ement s and s i gni fi cant l yal t er ed the s ubs t ant i ve s how i ng an appl i canthad t o m ake i n or dert o pr ocee d on new cl ai m s i n a s econd pe t i t i on. I n B enchof f, 404 F. 3d 812, w e s et 8ver s a i nas m uch as t he t erm s of th e A E D PA i nform j udi ci al cons i der at i on w i t h r es pectto a bus e- of- t he- w r i ti nqui r i es . See Z a y a s , 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 2 5 7
. 23 for t h t he new pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s w hi ch g o v e rn s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e h a b e a s p e titio n s u n d e r t h e A E D P A
. A s a procedu ral m at t er, sect i on 22 44 (b) (3) (A ) r equ i res a pr os pect i ve appl i cant , befor e he mayfi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve ap p li ca ti o n in the d istri ct co u rt , to “m o v e in th e a p p rop ri ate c o u rt of appe al s foran or derauthor i zi ng the di s t r i ctcour tt o cons i der th e a p p lica tio n .” A th re e -ju d g e p a n e l o f th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls m aygr antt he mot i on author i zi ng the di s t r i ctcour tt o cons i der t he ap pli cat i on “on l yi f i tdeterm i nes t hat the ap pli cat i on m akes a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng t hatthe appl i cat i on s at i s fi es the req u ir em en ts of

this sub sec ti o n . ” 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 )(B ), ( C )

. T he courtof appe al s s houl d m ake i t s det erm i nat i on no l at er th a n 3 0 d a y s a f

ter th e f ili n g o f th e m o tio n , id. a t § 2244( b) ( 3) ( D ) , and the dec i s i on “s hal l notbe appe al abl e and s hal l notbe the s ubj ectof a pe t i t i on forr ehea r i ng orfora w r i tof ce rt iorari. ” Id

. at § 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 )(E ). Sect i on 2244( b) ( 2) r equi r es thatthe courtof appe al s deny a m oti on t o fil e a secon d o r s uccessi ve h abeas p et i t i on un l ess: ( A ) t he appl i cants how s thatthe cl ai m r el i es on a n e w ru le o f

c o n stitu tio n a l law , m a d e re tro a c tiv e to c a se s o n c o llate ra l re v iew b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, t hatw as pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e; or ( B ) ( i ) t he fa ctual pr edi cat e forthe cl ai m coul d not have be en di s cover ed pr evi ous l ythr ough t he exer ci s e of due di l i gence ; and ( i i ) t he fa ct s under l y i ng the cl ai m , i f pr oven and v iew e d in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e a s a w h o le, w o u ld be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat , butforcons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have f ound t he appl i cantgui l t yof the under l y i ng offe ns e.24 Id . a t § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 ). I f the courtof appe al s det erm i nes thatthe pr ocedur al re q u ire m e n ts f

o r a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n h a v e b e e n m e t, t he appl i cantt hen i s perm i t t ed t o fi l e the s econd ors ucce s s i ve appl i cat i on w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t
. B uts ect i on 2244( b) ( 4) m akes i tcl eart hatbefor e a di s t r i ctcour tm aycons i derthe mer i t s of the appl i cat i on, t he pet i t i on m us ts at i s fythe s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s fori t
. A s w e puti ti n M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d at600,
“ [ t]h e se su b sta n tiv e g a tek e e p in g p ro v isio n s w e re in ten d e d to r educe t he uni ver s e of c as es i n w hi ch a ha beas pet i t i on m aygo f o rw a rd o n a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n .” In th is re g a rd , a di s t r i ctcourt“s hal l di s m i s s anycl ai m pr es ent ed i n a s econd or su c c e ss iv e a p p lica tio n th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls h a s a u th o riz e d to be fi l ed unl es s the appl i cants how s thatthe cl ai m s at i s fi es the re q u ir e m e n ts o f

[ s e c tio n 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )] .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 4 ). W e have m ade i tcl eart hat“[u] nl es s both t he pr ocedur al and su b stan ti v e re q u ir em en ts of § 2 2 4 4 are m et, the D istri ct C o u rt l acks author i t yt o cons i derthe mer i t s of the pet i t i on. ” B enchof f, 4 0 4 F .3 d a t 8 1 6
. I n M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d at600, w e w er e as ked t o det erm i ne w hethers ect i on 2244’ s gat ekee pi ng pr ovi s i ons have a n “i m perm i s s i bl e r etr oact i ve ef fec t ” i n cas es i n w hi ch the appl i cant fi l ed hi s fi r s tpet i t i on pr i ort o t he A E D PA ’ s enac t m entand he fi l ed hi s s econd pe t i t i on aft erthe A E D PA ’ s enac t m ent
. G ui ded b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt o p in io n s in L a n d g ra f v . U S I F ilm Pr oduct s , 511 U
. S. 244, 114 S. C t
. 1483 ( 1994) , and Li ndh v. M urphy , 521 U
. S. 320, 117 S. C t
. 2059 ( 1997) , w e conc l uded t hat , “[i ] n t hos e ca s es w her e a pr i s oneri n s t at e cus t odyhad a rig h t to p ro se c u te a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n p rio r to A E D P A ’s passage, bu tw ou l d b e dep ri ved of thatri gh tbythese n ew g atek ee p ing p rov isi o n s, . . . ap p ly ing the A E D P A stan d ard w oul d have a ‘ genui ne r etr oact i ve ef fec t ’ beca us e i tw oul d att ach a new and adve r s e cons equenc e t o pr e- A E D PA conduct–the pr os ecut i on of the or i gi nal pr ocee di ng. ” M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d at 6 0 0
. W e d istin g u ish e d A E D P A ’s n e w p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts fr om i t s s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s . W e dec i ded thatthe25 pr ocedur al r equi r ement–thatan appl i cantfi r s tm us ts eek author i zat i on fr om a courtof appe al s befor e fi l i ng a s econd p e tit io n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 )(A )– a p p lied re tro a c tiv e ly as i tw as a rul e of pr ocedur e thatdi d not“att ach ne w l egal cons equenc es t o event s compl et ed bef or e i t s enac t m ent
. ” M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d at599- 600 ( quot i ng L i ndh, 521 U
. S. at320, 117 S. C t
. at2059)

. H ow ever , w i t h r es pectt o t he new s u b s ta n tiv e re q u ir e m e n ts , w e f o u n d th a t if

a n a p p lic a n t,

c a n sh o w th a t h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n e n tit led to p u r s u e h i s s e c o n d p e t i t i o n u n d e rp r e - AE DP A l a w, t hen the Landgr af de faul trul e pr ohi bi t s appl y i ng A E D PA ’ s new s ubs t ant i ve gat ekee pi ng pr ovi s i ons t o barhi s cl ai m s . I n t he abs ence of s uch a s how i ng, how ever , appl y i ng thos e s t andar ds t o [an a p p lica n t] re su lts in n o g e n u in e re tro a c tiv e e f f e c t, and the A E D PA s t andar d m us tbe appl i ed under t he Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n L i ndh t hat A E D P A ’s h a b e a s c o rp u s a m e n d m e n ts a p p ly g e n e ra lly to c a s e s f

ile d a f te r i ts e f f e c tiv e d a te
. I d. at602. T her efor e w e conc l uded that any one s eeki ng t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 2254 aft erA pr i l 24, 1996, m us tm ove i n t he appr opr i at e C our tof A p p ea ls fo r an o rde r au tho ri zing the D istri ct C o u rt to c o n sid e r th e a p p lica tio n . W h e n su c h a m o tio n is fi l ed bya pet i t i onerw hos e pr evi ous pet i t i on w as fi l ed b efore t hat dat e, the C ou rtof A pp eal s m ust appl yt he s ubs t ant i ve gat ekee pi ng s t andar ds of 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 24 4(b) as am end ed b yA E D P A un l ess s uch appl i cat i on w oul d bara s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on t hatcoul d have be en cons i der ed bythe Di s t r i c tCo u r tu n d e rth e l a w e x i s t i n g a tth e t i me th e p re v io u s p e titio n w a s f ile d

. I d. at609.26 T h u s, in this ca se, th ere is no q u esti o n that the A E D P A ’s proced ural gatekeeping requir em ents for a cou rtof ap peals ’ author i zat i on appl yand have been s at i s fi ed. W e appl ythe su b stan ti v e g atek ee p ing stan d ard o f 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 (b), “unl es s s uch appl i cat i on w oul d bara s econd ors ucce s s i ve p eti ti o n that co u ld h av e b ee n co n side red b ythe D istri ct C o u rt undert he l aw exi s t i ng atthe t i m e the pr evi ous pet i t i on w as fi l ed. ” M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d at609. H er e, the di s t r i ctcour tby adopt i ng t he R eportand R ecomm endat i on as the opi ni on of the court , concl uded thatboth t he s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s of the A E D PA and the pr e- A E D PA abus e- of- t he- w r i tdoctr i ne bar Go l d b l u m’ s c l a i ms . Bu t , a s we p r e v i o u s l yd i s c u s s e d , we g ra n ted a C O A o n lyw ith re sp e c t to th e a b u se -o f -th e -w rit i nqui r y . T hus , underM i nar i k, s houl d w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ct courtt hatG ol dbl um ’ s cl ai m s w oul d be barr ed underthe pr eA E D PA abus e- of- t he- w r i tdoctr i ne, the A E D PA w oul d nothave a genui ne r etr oact i ve ef fec tand w e w oul d aff

i r m the di s t r i ct c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n b a r r i n g h i s c l a i ms u n d e rth e AE DP A. As we w i l l di s cus s , w e do r eac h t hi s concl us i on. B
. G o ld b lu m ’s A rg u m e n ts 1
. G o l d b l u m ’ s R i g h tt o a n E v i d e n t i a r y H ear i ng G o ld b lu m ’s a tto rn e ya t th e o ra l ar g u m e n t b e f o re u s s a id t hatal l he w as as ki ng forw as a hea r i ng. G ol dbl um bel i eves that h e i s e n t i t l e d t o a d i s t r i c tc o u r te v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g f o rtwo r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) we a l r e a d yf o u n d th a tGo l d b l u m ma d e a “ p r i ma fac i e s how i ng” as t o s ect i on 2244( b) ( 2) ’ s s ubs t ant i ve re q u ire m e n ts; a n d (2 ) th e sta te c o u rt d id n o t p e rm it h im to devel op t he r ecor d ful l y . W e fi nd thes e ar gum ent s unper s uas i ve f o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w. G ol dbl um fi r s tar gues thatourdet erm i nat i on thathe has m ade a “pr i m e fa ci e s how i ng” unders ect i on 2244, thus al l ow i ng hi m t o fi l e hi s s econd pe t i t i on, s om ehow r equi r ed thatthe di s t r i ct c o u rt h o ld a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g in m a k in g its th re sh o ld det erm i nat i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 2244( b) ( 4)

. A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at 1 7 . M o re s p e c if

ic a lly, h e s ta te s ,“[S] uffi ci ents how i ng of pos s i bl e mer i t ” i n thi s cont ext 9 does notr efe rt o the m eri t s of the cl ai m s as s ert ed i n the pet i t i on. R ather , i t r efe r s t o t he mer i t s of a pe t i t i oner ’ s s how i ng w i t h r es pect t o t he s ubs t ant i ve req u ir em ent s of 28 U

. S. C
. § 2244( b) ( 2)

. T he m er i t s of t he cl ai m s i n a s econd pet i t i on m ay not be cons i der ed by t he di s t r i ctcourtunt i l t he appl i cat i on cl ear s t he “tw o gat es ” er ect ed unders ect i on 2244, t hatof the courtof appe al s an d tha tof the d istri ct co u rt
. In In re T u rne r, 2 6 7 F
. 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 2 8 n . 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ), w e su g g e ste d th a t u n d e r B e n n e tt a n a p p lica n t m a yh a v e to 27 T his C ou rt , based o n specifi c factual al l egati on s, perm i t t ed [G ol dbl um ] t o fi l e a s ucce s s orhabea s p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A) ( p r i ma fac i e ca s e thatpet i t i onerhad ei t hercaus e and pr ej udi ce t o excus e fa i l ur e t o r ai s e i s s ues ear l i eror a demonstr at i on of ac tual i nnocenc e)

. T he di s t r i ct co u rtn ev erthe less d en ied G o ldb lum an ev iden ti ary hear i ng on t hes e ful l ys uppor t ed al l egat i ons and, on t hi s i ncompl et e r ecor d, rul ed thatG ol dbl um had ‘a b u se d ’ th e w rit. Id . a t 1 5
. I n r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, G ol dbl um m i s under s t ands ourgat ekee pi ng r ol e i n author i zi ng the fi l i ng of s econd or s ucce s s i ve pet i t i ons underthe A E D PA
. T hough i tw el l m aybe t hatw e have m ade ne i therthe meani ng of “pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng” unders ect i on 2244( b) ( 3) ( A ) norhow thatm eani ng i m pact s the d istric t co u rt’s s e c tio n 2 2 4 4 o b lig a tio n s c lea r, m a n yo th e r c o u rts of appe al s have. C our t s oft en have ci t ed B ennettv. U ni t ed S tate s, 1 1 9 F .3 d 4 6 8 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ), as a n in stru c tiv e o p in io n in th is f ield . In B e n n e tt, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C i r cui thel d: B y‘ pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng’ w e under s t and ( w i t hout gui dance i n t he s t atut oryl anguage orhi s t oryor c a se law ) sim p lya su f

f icie n t sh o w in g o f

p o ss ib le m er i tt o w arr anta ful l erexpl or at i on bythe di s t r i ct c o u rt. A ll th a t w e u su a llyh a v e b e f o re u s in [ 9]m ake a “pr i m a fa ci e show i ng” thathi s under l y i ng habea s corpus c laim h a s m e rit d u rin g th e p re -f ili n g a u th o riz a tio n sta g e . W e d id notper cei ve ful l yatt hat t i m e w hat t he cour t m eanti n B ennett , as o t h e rc o u r t s s u b s e q u e n t l yh a v e e x p l a i n e d th a tc a s e , a n d t o d a ywe co n clud e tha t th e “ p ri m a f ac ie sh o w ing ” un d er se cti o n 2 2 4 4 ref ers m er el yt o t he pr e-f

il i ng s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s of s ect i on 2244( b) ( 2)

. See W i l l i ams, 330 F. 3d at282 ( “[ T ] he ‘ s how i ng of pos s i bl e mer i t ’ al l uded t o i n B ennett r el at es t o t he pos s i bi l i t ythat t he cl ai m s i n a s ucce s s i ve appl i cat i on w i l l s at i s fyt he s t r i n g ent r equi r ement s fort he fi l l i ng of a se cond or suc ces s i ve pet i t i on, not th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e c laim s w ill u lti m a telyw a rra n t a d e c isio n in favor of t he appl i cant
. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and c it at i ons o m itted). W e have s i m i l ar rul es . See 3d C i r . L
. A
. R
. 22. 5( a) ( s t at i ng 10 t hatan appl i cat i on for author i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve p e ti t i on m ust be accom pan i ed by t he proposed new peti t i on , all p rio r p e tit io n s; c o p ies o f th e d o c k e t en tries ; co p ies o f a ll m a g istra te j udge r epor t s , di s t r i ctcour t opi ni ons , and or der s di s pos i ng of pr i or p e t i t i o n s ; a n d a n yo t h e rr e l e v a n td o c u me nt s ) ; 3 d Ci r . L. A. R. 22. 5( d) ( “A nyr es pons e t o t he appl i cat i on m us tbe fil ed w i t hi n 7 d ay s o f th e f

il ing o f th e a p p li ca ti o n w ith the c lerk.”).

28 rul i ng on s uch an a ppl i cat i on, w hi ch w e mustdo u n d e r a tig h t d e a d lin e (s e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( b) ( 3) ( D ) ) , i s the appl i cat i on i t s el f and document s r equi r ed t o be att ache d t o i t , cons i s t i ng o f th e p re v io u s m o tio n s a n d o p in io n s in th e c a s e . W e do notus ual l yhave a r es pons e fr om the g o v e rn m e n t, th o u g h s u c h a re s p o n s e is a u th o ri z e d

. 7 th C ir

. R
. 2 2
. 2 (c). If in lig h t o f

th e d o c u m e n ts [ 10] su b m itted w ith the a p p li ca ti o n itap p ea rs r eas onabl yl i kel ythatthe appl i cat i on s at i s fi es the s t r i ngentr equi r ementforthe fi l i ng of a s econd or s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n , w e s h a ll g ra n t th e a p p lic a tio n . T he gr anti s , how ever , i ti s i m por t antt o not e, tentati v e in th e f

o ll o w ing sen se: th e d istri ct co u rt m us tdi s m i s s t he mot i on thatw e have al l ow ed the appl i cantt o fi l e, w i t houtr eac hi ng the mer i t s of the m ot i on, i f the courtfi nds thatthe movanthas not29 s at i s fi ed the r equi r ement s forthe fi l i ng of s uch a m ot i on. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2244( b) ( 4)

. T he movant m us tgett hr ough tw o gat es befor e the mer i t s of the m ot i on can be cons i der ed. B ennett , 119 F. 3d at469- 70. A tl eas ts even othercour t s of a p p e a ls h a v e a d o p ted th is in terp re tatio n o f “ p rim a f a c ie sh o w ing

. ” S ee In re L o tt , 3 6 6 F
. 3 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 2 -33 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); W i l l i ams, 330 F. 3d at281- 82; I n r e H ol l aday , 331 F. 3d 1169, 1173- 74 ( 11t h C i r . 2003) ; B el l v. U ni t ed St at es , 296 F. 3d 127, 128 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ; R ey es - R equena v. U ni t ed St at es , 243 F. 3d 893, 898- 99 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ; T hom ps on v. C al der on, 151 F. 3d 9 1 8 , 9 2 5 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); R o d rig u e z v . S u p e rin ten d e n t, B a yS tate C or r . C t r . , 139 F. 3d 270, 273 ( 1s tC i r . 1998) , overrul ed on other g ro u n d s b yB o u sle yv . U n ited S tate s, 5 2 3 U .S . 6 1 4 , 1 1 8 S .C t. 1604 ( 1998)

. T oday , w e j oi n t hem i n adopt i ng the meani ng of
“ p rim a f a c ie s h o w in g ” d isc u ss e d in B e n n e tt. In lig h t o f

th e se p rin c ip les , itis c lea r th a t C o n g re ss d id noti nt end t o bi nd t he di s t r i ctcour ti n anyw aybya courtof appea l s ’ pr el i m i naryexami nat i on of the s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s unders ect i on 2244( b) ( 2) , exce ptt o t he ext entthat i f a c o u rto f

a p p e a l s f

i n d s th a ta p e t i t i o n e rh a s ma d e a p r i ma fac i e s how i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour ti s obl i gat ed t o conductan in d e p e n d e n t g a tek e e p in g in q u iryu n d e r se c tio n 2 2 4 4 (b )(4 ). T h is lim ited e f

f e c t o f a c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls’ in iti a l d e ter m in a tio n is re q u ire d b e c a u se a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls s h o u ld m a k e its det erm i nat i on w i t hi n an extr emel yt i ghtdeadl i ne and on the bas i s of a l i m i t ed i nqui r y ; thus , i ti s cl earthatC ongr es s di d not i nt end thatt he courtof appe al s ’ pr el i m i naryauthor i zat i on d e te rm in e h o w a d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n d u c t its s u b s e q u e n t a n a lysis

. T h e d istri ct co u rtw il l nee d to m ak e a m o re e x tens ive in q u iry unders ect i on 2244( b) ( 4) and i t“mustconducta thor ough r evi ew t o det erm i ne i f the mot i on concl us i vel ydemonstr at es thati tdoes n o t m e e t A E D P A ’s s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n re q u ir e m e n ts ,” R ey es - R equena , 243 F. 3d at899 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. B uta courtof appe al s i s obl i ged onl yt o m ake a pr el i m i narydet erm i nat i on as t o w hethera pet i t i onerhas m ade a “ p r i ma f

a c i e s h o wi n g ” wi t h r e s p e c tt o th o s e s a me r equi r ement s , i

. e. , w hetherthe pet i t i on m akes “a s uffi ci entW hi l e an a r gum entcan be m ade thats ect i on 2254( e) 11 s houl d notappl yatal l i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s beca us e s ect i on 2244 r equi r es a m er e thr es hol d det erm i nat i on t hatdoes noti nvol ve the m e rits o f th e c laim s, se c tio n 2 2 5 4 (e ) m a k e s cle a r th a t ita p p lies in al l pr ocee di ngs “i ns t i tut ed byan ap p li ca t i on fora w r i tof habe as 30 s how i ng of pos s i bl e mer i tt o w arr anta ful l erexpl or at i on bythe dis t ri ctcou rt , ” B enn et t , 11 9 F
. 3d at46 9. N evertheles s, not w i t hs t andi ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s obl i gat i on t o m ake a n i ndepende ntgat ekee pi ng i nqui r y , a di s t r i ctcour tdoes notfac e a re q u ire m e n t th a t ita lw a y s c o n d u c t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g in under t aki ng t hi s m or e thor ough r evi ew . R ather , the dec i s i on of w hetherornott o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng i s w i t hi n t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s cr et i on. See Schr i r o, 127 S. C t
. at1940. G ol dbl um al s o cont ends thathe i s ent i t l ed t o an e v id e n tiary he a rin g u n d e r se c tio n 2 2 5 4 (e )(2 ) b e c a u se th e sta te co u rtd id n o t perm ith im to d ev elop the re co rd f u ll yas th e c o u rt pr ecl uded the t es t i m onyof tw o for ens i c expe r t s w ho w oul d have pr ovi ded expe r topi ni ons s i m i l art o t hos e of D r . W echt

. U nder 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2), [i ] f the appl i canthas fai l ed t o devel op the fa ctual bas i s of a c l ai m i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs , the courts hal l nothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he claim u n less the a p p li ca n t sho w s tha t- - ( A ) t he cl ai m r el i es on- - ( i ) a new rul e of cons t i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew bythe Supr eme C our t , thatw as p re v io u slyu n a v a ilab le; o r (ii) a f a c tu a l p re d ica te t hatcoul d nothave be en pr evi ous l ydi s cover ed t hr ough t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; and ( B ) t he fa ct s under l y i ng the cl ai m w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatbutforcons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have f ound t he appl i cantgui l t yof the under l y i ng offe ns e. 11c o rp u s b ya p e rso n in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to th e ju d g m e n t o f a S tate co u r t
. ” A de t e r mi n a t i o n u n d e rs e c t i o n 2 2 4 4 , whi l e n o to n t he m e ri ts o f th e c la im s , f

a lls w ith in th is la n g u a g e .

31 T hus , unders ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) , i f an a ppl i canthas d e v e lo p e d th e f

a c tu a l b a sis o f

h is c laim s in th e sta te c o u rt, h e is notent i t l ed t o a fe der al evi dent i aryhear i ng. Fur t herm or e, even i f the fa ctual bas i s i s nots uffi ci ent l ydevel oped, a pet i t i oner m us tdemonstr at e thathi s cas e fa l l s w i t hi n t he veryl i m i t ed c irc u m sta n c e s liste d in se c tio n 2 2 5 4 (e )(2 )(A ) a n d (B ), an d o n ly t hen i s t he di s t r i ctcourtperm i t t ed underthe A E D PA , though not r equi r ed, t o gr antan evi dent i aryhear i ng. See C ampbel l v. V aughn, 209 F. 3d 280, 286- 87 ( 3d C i r . 2000)

. W e r ei t er at e that t he dec i s i on t o gr antan evi dent i aryhear i ng i s “l eftt o t he s ound d is c re tio n o f

d is tr ic t c o u rt s .” S c h ri ro , 1 2 7 S .C t. a t 1 9 3 9
. A ddi t i onal l y , t he Supr eme C our thas m ade c l earthat“an evi dent i aryhear i ng i s notr equi r ed on i s s ues thatcan be r es ol ved b yre f e re n c e to th e sta te c o u rt re c o rd ,” a s “ [ i]f d istric t co u rts w er e r equi r ed t o al l ow fede r al habea s appl i cant s t o devel op even t he m osti nsub st anti al factual al l egati on s i n ev i den t i aryheari ng s, di s t r i ctcourt s w oul d be for ced t o r eopen f actual di s put es that w er e conc l us i vel yr es ol ved i n t he s t at e court s . ” I d. at1940 (i nternal quotat i on m arks and cit at i on om i t t ed). W i t h these pr i nci pl es i n m i nd, w e r evi ew G ol dbl um ’ s evi dent i aryhear i ng c o n te n tio n . W e d isa g re e w ith G o ld b lu m th a t th e f a c tu a l b a sis o f

h is claim s w as n o t dev elop ed su ff ici en tl yin the stat e-c o u rt p roc ee d ing s. T h e state c o u rtco n d u cted a thre e-d ayev iden ti ary hear i ng i n w hi ch i thear d t he t es t i m onyof G ol dbl um ’ s tr i al att or ney , M r . R ot hm an, hi s for ens i c expe r t , D r . W echt , and the C om m onw eal t h’ s r ebut t al for ens i c expe r t , M r . W ol s on. T he m att erw as on r emand t o t he PC R A cour ton t he s ol e i s s ue of the pot ent i al i m pactof D r . W echt ’ s t es t i m onyon t he j uryhad i tbeen p rese n ted a t tri al. T h e state c o u rto n the re m an d p erm itted D r. W echtt o t es t i fyuni m peded w i t h r es pectt o hi s opi ni ons . T he c o u rt, h o w e v e r, d id n o t p e rm it t e stim o n yf ro m tw o o th e r e x p e rts w h o G o ldb lum p lann ed to introd u ce to b u ttress D r. W ec h t’ s fi ndi ngs beca us e thei rt es t i m onyexce eded the s cope of theO f c o u rse , o n a p p e a l th e S u p e r io r C o u rt u p h e ld th e sta te 12 t r i al court ’ s l i m i t at i on of the scope of t he re m and. W e addr es s the poi ntfr om an i nqui r yas t o w h ethert he r ecor d w as devel oped s uffi ci ent l yforouranal y s i s . W e ce r t ai nl ydo notr evi ew t he c o n c l u s i o n o f

t h e s t a t e c o u r t s o n s t a t e l a w. I n a r el at ed poi nt , G ol dbl um ar gues t hatbeca us e he w as 13 n o t p e rm itt e d to d e v e lo p th e sta te- c o u rt re c o rd f u lly , the m a g istra te ju d g e e rre d b y a p p ly in g th e p re su m p tio n o f c o rre c tn e ss to th e sta te c o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s u n d e r 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 ), p a rticu lar ly

32 r emand, al t hough i tdi d admi tthei raff i davi t s . W e conc l ude that t he t es t i m onyof D r . W echti n conj unct i on w i t h t he af fi davi t s of t he pr opos ed expe r t s s uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s hed the fa ctual bas i s of G o ld b lu m ’s c laim s s u c h th a t th e iss u e s h e p re se n ted in h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n “ c a n b e re so lv e d b yre f e re n c e to th e sta te courtr ecor d. ” I d. at1940. T hus , G ol dbl um w as notent i t l ed t o a d is tr ic t c o u rt e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . M or eover , even i f the s t at e courts houl d have r egar ded t he r emand as br oaderi n s cope s o t hati tperm i t t ed the other expert s t o t es t i fy , a conc l us i on thatthe s t at e court s di d notr eac h, i ti s cl eart hatt he expe r t s ’ opi ni ons w oul d have s uffe r ed fr om t he s ame fat al fl aw as D r . W echt ’ s –the l ack of phot ogr aphs or ot herphy s i cal evi dence depi ct i ng the bl ood s t ai ns w oul d have m a d e th e ir tes tim o n y“ ten tativ e ” a n d “ e ss e n tiallya m o u n t[ in g ] to sp e c u latio n ,” a s th e sta te c o u rt c o n c lu d e d

. T h u s, th e ir 12 t es t i m onyl i kel yw oul d have be en exc l uded for , under Penns y l vani a l aw , a courtonl ym us tent ert ai n expertt es t i m ony t hatw oul d “as s i s tt he tr i erof fa ctt o under s t and the evi dence or t o det erm i ne a f

acti n i s s ue, ” P A . R. E V ID . 702, and r el evant evi dence “maybe exc l uded i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s outw ei ghed .

. . bycon si derat i on s of un du e delay , w ast e of ti m e, or need l ess pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence

. ” P A . R. E V ID . 403. T he s ta te s ta n d a rd s a re s im ila r t o th o s e f o llo w e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s . H er e, aft erconcl udi ng thatD r . W echt ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e unr el i abl e, i tw oul d have be en compl et el yappr opr i at e forthe courtt o have ex p lai n ed it s d iscreti o n in p rec lud ing cu m u lat ive e x p ert tes tim o n yo n th e b a sis th a t itw o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n h e lp f u l to it i n under s t andi ng t he evi dence ordet erm i ni ng a fa cti n i s s ue. 13i n r eac hi ng t he conc l us i on thatD r . W echt ’ s t es t i m onyw as sp ec u lat ive. U n d er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1), In a p ro c e e d in g in stitu ted b ya n a p p lica tio n f o r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s b y a p e rso n in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to t he j udgm entof a S ta t e court , a det erm i nat i on of a fac tual i s s ue m ade by a S t at e cour t s hal l be pr es um ed t o be corr ect
. T he appl i cant s hal l have the bur den of r ebutt i ng t he pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s byc l earand convi nci ng evi dence

. A s di s cus s ed above, w e fi nd thatG ol dbl um s uffi ci ent l ydevel oped th e sta te- c o u rt re c o rd , an d , thu s, w e f in d n o e rro r in th e m a g istra te j udge’ s deci s i on t o appl y t he pr es um pt i on of corr ectness t o the s ta te c o u rt ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . N evert hel es s , i n an att empt t o r ebutt hi s p resu m pt i on, G ol dbl um ’ s at t or neyemphasi zed a tor al ar gum enttha tthe C om m onw eal t h “conc eded” i n i t s A ns w ert o G ol dbl um ’ s “M ot i on forL eave of C our tt o Serve R es pondent s w i t h R eques tfor Pr oduct i on of D ocument s , ” dat ed O ct ober 29, 2004, t hatD et ect i ve F ree m an p ro v ided a “ d etail ed d esc ri p ti o n ” o f th e b loo d sp att er. W e, how ev er, do nots ee how t hi s i s r el evantas t he C om m onw eal t h’ s cat egor i zat i on of t he evi dence i s notbi ndi ng on t he vi ew s of t he expert s or t he cour t
. D et ai l ed or n o t, t he C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ex p ert an d the c o u rtfo u n d that the o ff icer’s re c o llec tio n w a s n o t su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o n w h ich a n e x p e rt c o u ld bas e hi s concl us i on, and i n the abs ence of phot ogr aphs , t he opi ni on i s unr el i abl e. T he C om m onw eal t h’ s al l eged “conc es s i on” does not c h a n g e th is d e te rm in a tio n , an d , ce rta in ly , itd o e s n o t co n stitu te cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat w oul d r ebut t he pr es um pt i on as to the co rr e c tn ess o f th e state c o u rt ’s ev alua ti o n o f D r. W ec h t’ s opi ni on. 33 E ven i f w e agr eed w i t h G ol dbl um thathe has been de ni ed t he opportuni t yt o devel op the fa ctual r ecor d t hr ough no faul tof hi s ow n, and ther efor e s ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) di d notpr ecl ude an e v id e n tiary he a rin g , su c h a f in d in g d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilye n tit le h im to o n e . S e e C a m p b e ll, 2 0 9 F .3 d a t 2 8 7 . R a th e r, itm e re ly34 m eans t hatw hi l e a he ar i ng i s notpr ohi bi t ed unders ect i on 2 2 5 4 (e )(2 ), th e d istric t co u rt still reta in s th e d isc re tio n to g ra n t a h ea ri n g o r no t. S ee S ch ri ro, 12 7 S
. C t. at 19 3 7 (“In ca ses w h ere an appl i cantforfede r al habea s r el i ef i s notbarr ed fr om obt ai ni ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng by28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( e) ( 2) , the deci s i on t o gr ants uch a he ar i ng r es t s i n t he di s cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcourt
. ”) ; C ampbel l , 209 F. 3d at287. “I n exer ci s i ng that di s cr et i on, court s focus on w hethera new evi dent i aryhear i ng w oul d be meani ngful , i n t hata new hear i ng w oul d have the pot ent i al t o advanc e the pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m . ” C ampbel l , 209 F. 3d at287. Forexampl e, i n C ampbel l w e di s cus s ed the ca s e of C ar dw el l v. G r eene , 152 F. 3d 331, 338 ( 4th C i r . 1998) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ), in w h ich th e c o u rt h e ld t hatan evi dent i aryhear i ng w as perm i s s i bl e unders ect i on 2 2 5 4 (e)(2) b ec au se itw as th e state’s fa u ltthat the f ac tual rec o rd w as i ncompl et e, butconcl uded thati tw as w i t hi n t he di s t r i ct court ’ s di s cr et i on t o denyan evi dent i aryhear i ng as the pet i t i oner “ha[ d] fai l ed t o for eca s tanyevi dence bey ond t hatal r eady c o n tain e d in th e re c o rd th a t w o u ld h e lp h is c a u se , o r o th e rw ise to ex p lai n h o w h is cl aim w o u ld b e a d v an ce d b yan ev iden ti ary hear i ng. ” L i kew i se, i n thi s case, the m agis t rat e j ud ge d i d n ot abuse h er d iscreti o n in ref

u sing to g ran t G o ldb lum a n ew ev iden ti ary h e a ri n g , e v e n if

o n e w a s p e rm itte d u n d e r s e c tio n 2 2 5 4 (e )( 2 ). G ol dbl um does nothave a nyevi dence bey ond t hatal r eady c o n ta in e d in th e s ta te -c o u rt re c o rd th a t w o u ld h e lp h is c a u s e . W h ile th e sta te c o u rt d id n o t p e rm it tw o o f G o ld b lu m ’s e x p e rts to testi fy , their af

fid av it s are p art of

the s tat e-c o u rtrec o rd s ubm i t t ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour t
. E s s ent i al l ythen, G ol dbl um s eeks an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g o n the s o le gro u n d that h e h as tw o m o re e x p e rts, w h o se a f

f id a v its w e re b e f

o re th e d istric t co u rt, w h o w ill pr es entt es t i m onyechoi ng thatof D r . W echt

. T he “bol s t er i ng” t es t i m onyof the otherexpert s does nothave pot ent i al t o advanc e G ol dbl um ’ s cl ai m s as s uch t es t i m onycannotover come t he fa t al fl aw found byt he s t at e court , the magi s t r at e j udge, and the di s t r i ctcourt–t hatabs entfor ens i c evi dence confi r m i ng the di s t r i but i on of the bl ood s t ai ns , thei rfi ndi ngs ar e i nconcl us i ve an d u n reli ab le. Itw o u ld n o t be p rud en t t o h o ld an ev iden ti ary hear i ng t o r eac h a conc l us i on al r eadyi nevi t abl yr eac hed, and,35 t hus , t he magi s t r at e j udge ce r t ai nl ydi d notabus e herdi s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o hears uch dupl i cat i ve t es t i m onyon an i s s ue that coul d r eadi l y“be r es ol ved byr efe r ence t o t he s t at e courtr ecor d. ” S c h ri ro , 1 2 7 S .C t. a t 1 9 4 0
. G o ld b lu m m a k e s tw o a d d iti o n a l ar g u m e n ts re late d to th is poi nt
. Fi r s t , G ol dbl um cont ends that“the di s t r i ctcour tcoul d not fai r l yadj udi cat e the cl ai m s of ac tual i nnocenc e” be caus e i tfai l ed t o cons i dert he expe r t s ’ aff i davi t s thatw oul d confi r m and bol s t er D r . W echt ’ s fi ndi ngs . A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at23. T o t he contr ary , the R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n d e m o n stra tes th a t th e m a g istra te jud g e d id co n side r th e a ff idav it s. S ee A p p . at 48 (“In d ee d , D r. W echt ’ s aff

i davi t , and the af

fi davi t s of otherfor ens i c expe r t s , do a p p e a r to m a k e a stro n g c a se . . . . ” ). H o w e v e r, sh e a g re e d w ith t he PC R A courtt hatt hes e af fi davi t s w er e notpr obat i ve i n l i ght of the fi ndi ng t hatt he l ack of phy s i cal evi dence depi ct i ng the b lo o d s ta in s m a d e th e iro p in io n s “ in d e te rm in a te .” Second, G ol dbl um bel i eves thatthe magi s t r at e j udge ap p li ed “the w ron g stan d ard in d eterm ining w h ethe r D r. W ec h t’ s t es t i m onys uppor t ed a c l ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e” a s , acc or di ng t o G ol dbl um , t he t es t i m onyneed not“unequi vocal l y ” or “abs ol ut el y ” exone r at e hi m , butan expe r t“nee d onl ypr es ent opi ni ons t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of cert ai nty . ” A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at 25- 26. G ol dbl um has confus ed the s t andar d governi ng the admi s s i bi l i t yof expe r tt es t i m onyattr i al underFeder al R ul es of E v id e n c e 7 0 2 a n d 7 0 3 w ith th e h ig h b u rd e n th a t h e m u st m e e t to excus e hi s fai l ur e t o r ai s e hi s cl ai m i n hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on u n d e r th e a b u se -o f

-th e -w rit d o c trin e . T h e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly c o n c e rn e d its e lf

o n ly w ith th e la tte r p o in t. 2
. “ C a u se ” u n d e r th e A b u se -o f -th e -W rit D octr i ne G o ld b lu m a rg u e s a s w e ll th a t th e c o u rt “ d id n o t p ro p e rly appl yt he pr e- A E D PA abus e of the w r i ts t andar d. ” I d. at21. T he m agi s t r at e j udge found thatG ol dbl um di d notes t abl i s h “ca us e” forom i s s i on of the bl ood s pat t ercl ai m fr om the fi r s tpet i t i on b e c a u s e f

a ilu re to e x h a u s t r e m e d ie s is n o t a s u f f ic ie n t e x c u s e . L ik e w ise , sh e f

o u n d th a t th e f

a ilu re to p re se n t th e c laim s w ith36 r es pectt o t he i m pr operi ns t ruct i on on acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t yw as notexcus abl e as t he l aw governi ng the i ns t ruct i on w as know n at t he t i m e of the fi r s tpet i t i on. G ol dbl um , how ever , bel i eves thatther e i s “ca us e” f or fai l i ng t o pr es enthi s cl ai m s i n hi s fi r s tpet i t i on s o l ong as the cl ai m w as notw i t hhel d for“mani pul at i ve purpos es ” orw as not
“ d e lib e ra telyw ith h e ld

. . . in o rd e r to se c u re a n o p p o rtu n ityto pur s ue unnec es s ary , and thus vexat i ous , s ucce s s i ve l i t i gat i on. ” I d. H e ar gues t hati n hi s cas e ther e “w as no s uch ‘ m ani pul at i ve purpos e’ orat t empt atvexat i ous l i t i gat i on” as “[t ] her e i s no evi dence t hat[he] had ac tual know l edge of hi s cl ai m ( as nei t her he norany one on hi s behal f had c ons i der ed ori nves t i gat ed the c l a i m) o rt h a th e d e l i b e r a t e l ywi t h h e l d th e c l a i m t o s e e k s o me u n f a ira d v a n ta g e in a s e c o n d h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g .” Id . a t 2 1 -2 2
. M o re o v e r, h e a rg u e s th a t sin c e h is b lo o d sp a tter c laim “ w o u ld have r es ul t ed i n a ‘ m i xed pet i t i on’ and ther ebyw oul d have be en s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al pur s uantt o R os e v. L undy , 455 U
. S. 509, 102 S. C t
. 1198 ( 1982) , t her e w as no abus e of the pr oces s , and s ur el yno del i ber at e att empt t o gai n anyl i t i gat i on advant age. ” A p p e lla n t’ s b r. a t 2 2
. W e c o n c lu d e th a t G o ld b lu m m is s ta te s th e la w . S p e c if ica lly , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re jec ted th e “ g o o d f

a ith ‘d e lib e ra te a b a n d o n m e n t’ sta n d a rd ” p re f e rre d b yth e d iss e n t in M c C le s k e y , 4 9 9 U .S . a t 5 0 6 , 1 1 1 S .C t. a t 1 4 7 7 (M a rs h a ll, J ., d iss e n tin g ), an d in ste a d h a s m a d e c lea r th a t “[ a ]b u se o f th e w rit i s notconfi ned t o i ns t ance s of del i ber at e aba ndonm ent
. ” I d. at 4 8 9 , 1 1 1 S .C t. at 1 4 6 7 . T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t d e lib e ra te act i on i s butone exa m pl e of c onductthatw oul d di s ent i t l e a pet i t i onerfr om r el i ef unde rthe abus e- of- t he- w r i tdoctr i ne, s t at i ng:[A ] pet i t i on er m ayabu se the w ri tbyfai l i ng t o rai se a cl ai m t hr ough i nexcus abl e negl ect
. O urr ece nt deci s i ons confi r m thata pet i t i onercan a bus e the w r i tbyr ai s i ng a cl ai m i n a s ubs equentpet i t i on that he coul d have r ai s ed i n hi s fi r s t , r egar dl es s of w hethert he fa i l ur e t o r ai s e i tear l i ers t emm ed fr om a d e lib e ra te c h o ic e .37 I d

. a t4 8 9 , 1 1 1 S
. Ct
. a t1 4 6 8
. Th u s , i ti s c l e a rth a tth e S u p r e me C o u rt in M c C les k e yh e ld th a t a c o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e to f in d th a t a p e tit io n e r h a d a “ m a n ip u lativ e p u rp o se ” o r a c ted w ith
“ d e lib e ra ten e ss ” in w ith h o ld in g a c laim f ro m a p rio r p e tit io n in or derfort he courtt o r ej ectthe pet i t i oner ’ s cont ent i on thathe h a d “ c a u se ” u n d e r th e a b u se -o f -th e -w rit d o c trin e f

o r f a ili n g to pr es entt he cl ai m i n hi s fi r s tpet i t i on w hen he f i l es a s ubs equent p eti ti o n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . B arrett , 1 7 8 F
. 3 d 3 4 , 4 9 (1st C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t “[ w ]h e th e r o r n o t [ p e tit io n e r’s ] f a ilu re to [i ncl ude the cl ai m s i n t he fi r s tpet i t i on] w as i nt ent i onal i s of no m om ent ” underM cC l es key ) ; Saahi rv. C ol l i ns , 956 F. 2d 115, 11 9 (5t h C i r. 19 92 ) ( fi nd i ng peti t i on er abused the w ri tbecau se h e “ sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n ” a b o u t th e leg a l th e o rie s h e f a iled to advanc e i n hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on) ; C ampbel l v. B l odgett , 997 F. 2d 512, 520 ( 9t h C i r . 1992) ( “To j us t i fythi s cos t l yl i t i gat i on stra teg y[ o f

p e rm itt in g se c o n d h a b e a s p e tit io n s], b e it d e lib e ra te c h o ic e , p ro c e d u ra lly-c o n s tr a in e d d e c is io n , o r n e g le c t, a pet i t i onerm us ts how caus e forthe omi s s i on and pr ej udi ce th e re f ro m .” ). G ol dbl um ’ s r el i ance on t he t erm “mani pul at i ve purpos e[] , ” i n M cC l es keyi s notm er i t or i ous as the t erm i s i n no w ayi ncons i s t entw i t h t he C our t ’ s cl earhol di ng that del i ber at enes s i s notr equi r ed t o es t abl i s h caus e. Puti n i t s pr oper cont ext , t he C our t , i n di s cus s i ng the cos t s of fe der al col l at er al lit ig a tio n , sta ted , “h a b e a s c o rp u s re v iew m a yg iv e lit ig a n ts i ncent i ves t o w i t hhol d cl ai m s form ani pul at i ve purpos es and may es t abl i s h di s i ncent i ves t o pr es entcl ai m s w hen evi dence i s fr es h. ” M c C les k e y , 4 9 9 U .S . at 4 9 1 -9 2 , 1 1 1 S .C t. at 1 4 6 9 . T h is s t at ementdoes noti nj ecta del i ber at enes s r equi r ementi nt o t he abus e- of- t he- w r i tj ur i s prudence , buti ns t ead of fer s one of many e x a m p le s o f

c o n d u c t th a t w o u ld b a r r e lie f

. W e sim ilarlyre

jec t G o ld b lu m ’s a rg u m e n t th a t w e sh o u ld excu se hi s fai l ure t o incl ud e t he b l oo d spatt er cl ai m i n h i s fi rs t habea s corpus pet i t i on beca us e the val i di t yof the cl ai m had not been l i t i gat ed i n t he s t at e court s and w oul d have r es ul t ed i n a “ m ix e d p e tit io n ” u n d e r R o se v . L u n d y , 4 5 5 U .S . 5 0 9 , 1 0 2 S .C t. 1 1 9 8
. We e n c o u n t e r e d th i s p r e c i s e i s s u e i n Be n c h o f f

. T h e r e , we det erm i ned that“R os e v. L undyr equi r es a pet i t i onert o ei t her38 f u llye x h a u st a ll cla im s p rio r to f ili n g a p e tit io n o r to ra ise b o th exhaus t ed and une xhaus t ed cl ai m s i n t he fi r s thabea s pet i t i on. ” B enchof f, 404 F. 3d at820. I n a ca s e i n w hi ch an a ppl i cant chos e the l att ercour s e, the pet i t i on w oul d be di s m i s s ed w i t hout pr ej udi ce a nd t he appl i cantthen pr oper l ycoul d r efi l e the pet i t i on once a l l of the cl ai m s ar e exha us t ed and the r efi l ed pet i t i on w ou l d n ot const i tute a s econ d o r s uccessi ve p et i t i on . Id. T hu s, w e con cl ud ed thatfai l ure t o ex hau sta cl ai m “i s not an excu se for [t he p et i t i on er’ s] fai l ure t o rai se the clai m i n h i s fi rs t p e tit io n .” Id . at 8 1 9 ; se e a lso S lac k , 5 2 9 U .S . at 4 8 7 , 1 2 0 S .C t. at1605 ( “A pet i t i on fi l ed af t era mi xed pet i t i on has been d ism issed u n d er R o se v . L u n d yb ef o re the d istri ct co u rt adjudi cat ed an ycl ai m s i s t o b e t reat ed as ‘anyotherfi rs t p e tit io n ’ a n d is n o t a s e c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n .”). A s in B e n c h o f f , G o ld b lu m ’s c h o ice to w ith h o ld h is b lo o d sp a tter c laim f ro m h is f irst h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n w h ile h e e x h a u ste d it i n s t at e courtr athert han fol l ow i ng the pr ocedur e pr es cr i bed by R o se a n d its p ro g e n yb a rs th is c laim u n d e r th e a b u se -o f -th e -w rit d o c tr in e . 3. “A ctual I nnocenc e” unde rthe A bus e- oft he- W r i tD octr i ne
a. T he new evi dence G ol dbl um cont ends thateven i f he ha s notes t abl i s hed “ca us e” a nd “pr ej udi ce” underthe abus e- of- t he- w r i tdoctr i ne, he has demonstr at ed hi s “ac tual i nnocenc e, ” and thus the di s t r i ct court ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s s econd pe t i t i on w as a “mi s carr i age of ju stic e .” G o ld b lu m f

a c e s a v e ryh ig h b u rd e n w ith re sp e c t to th is as s er t i on. T he Supr eme C our thas i ns truct ed us thatour authori t yt o ex cuse t he fa i l ure t o p res ent a cl ai m i n the fi rs t pet i t i on, abs ent“ca us e” a nd “pr ej udi ce, ” onl ys houl d be ex erc ised in a “ n arro w class o f c ase s, ” i. e., in “e x tr ao rdin ary i ns t ance s w hen a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on pr obabl yhas caus ed the c on vi c t i on of

on e i nn oc e ntof

the c r i me. ” M c Cl e s ke y , 49 9 U. S. a t4 9 4 , 1 1 1 S
. C t
. a t1 4 7 0
. “ T o e s t a b l i s h th e r e q u i s i t e p r o b a b i l i t y, t he pet i t i onerm us ts how thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed hi m i n l i ghtof the new e v id e n c e .” S c h lu p , 5 1 3 U .S . a t 3 2 7 , 1 1 5 S .C t. a t 8 6 7
.39 In H u b b ard v . P inch ak , 3 7 8 F
. 3 d 3 3 3 , 3 4 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ), cert
. deni ed, 543 U
. S. 1070, 125 S. C t
. 910 ( 2005) , w e s etfor t h a t w o- s t ep i nqui r ya courtm us tt ake i n deci di ng a cl ai m of ac tual inn o ce n ce . F ir st, a c o u rtm u st de cide “w h ethe r th e [ p eti ti o n er] has pr es ent ed new r el i abl e evi dence

. . . notpr es ent ed attr i al

. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. W i t h r es pect t o t hi s i nqui r y , t he Supr eme C our thas hel d: [A ] s ubs t ant i al cl ai m thatcons t i tut i onal err orhas c a u se d th e c o n v ictio n o f a n in n o c e n t p e rso n is e x tre m e lyra re . T o b e c re d ib le, s u c h a c laim r equi r es a pet i t i onert o s uppor thi s al l egat i ons of c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r w ith n e w re liab le e v id e n c e

– w h e th e r it b e e x c u lp a to rysc ien tific evi dence , t rus t w or t hyey ew i t nes s acc ount s , or cr i t i cal phy s i cal evi dence –thatw as notpr es ent ed at trial. B e c a u se su c h e v id e n c e is o b v io u sly unavai l abl e i n t he vas tm aj or i t yof ca s es , cl ai m s of a c tu a l in n o c e n c e a re ra re ly su c c e s s f u l. Schl up, 513 U
. S. at324, 115 S. C t
. at865 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T hus , “[w ] i t houtanynew evi dence of i nnocenc e, even t he exi s t ence of a c oncede dl ym er i t or i ous cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on i s noti n i t s el f s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce that w oul d al l ow a habe as cour tt o r eac h t he mer i t s of a ba r r ed c la im .” Id . a t 3 1 6 , 1 1 5 S .C t. a t 8 6 1
. Second, onl yi f a pe t i t i onerfi r s tput s for t h new evi dence n o t con side red b ythe ju ryd o es a co u rtask “w h ethe r i t i s m o re l i kel yt han nott hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed h im in li g h t of

the n ew ev iden ce . ” H u b b ard , 3 7 8 F
. 3 d at 34 0
. In m aki ng t hi s s econd i nqui r y , a court“mustcons i deral l the evi dence , ol d and new , i ncr i m i nat i ng and exc ul pat ory , w i t hout r egar d t o w hetheri tw oul d nece s s ar i l ybe admi t t ed underrul es of admi s s i bi l i t yt hatw oul d govern attr i al , ” and “ as s es s how r eas onabl e j ur or s w oul d r eac tt o t he over al l , new l ys uppl ement ed r ecor d. ” H ous e v. B el l , 126 S. C t
. 2064, 2077, 2078 ( 2006) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. Th e S u p r e me C our tr epea t edl yhas emphasi zed that40 [t ] he meani ng of ac tual i nnocenc e . . . does not m er el yr equi r e a s how i ng thata r eas onabl e doubt exi s t s i n t he l i ghtof the new evi dence , butr ather t hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have f ound t he d ef en d an t gu il ty
. Itis no t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t as to w h e th e r re a so n a b le doubtexi s t s t hatthe s t andar d addr es s es ; r atherthe s t andar d r equi r es the di s t r i ctcour tt o m ake a pr obabi l i s t i c det erm i nat i on aboutw hatr eas onabl e, p ro p e rl yin s tru c te d ju ro rs w o u ld d o . T h u s , a pet i t i onerdoes notm eetthe thr es hol d r equi r ement unl es s he per s uades the di s t r i ctcour tthat , i n l i ght o f t h e n e w e v i d e n c e , n o j u r o r , a c t i n g r e a s o n a b l y, w oul d have vot ed t o fi nd hi m gui l t ybey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Schl up, 513 U
. S. at329, 115 S. C t
. at868. [T]he pet i t i oner s houl d be al l ow ed t o pas s thr ough t he gat ew ayand ar gue the m e ri ts o f h is u n d e rl y in g c la im s ” o n ly “i f a p e titio n e r . . . pr es ent s evi dence of i nnocenc e s o s t r ong t hata courtcannot h a v e c o n f

id e n c e in th e o u tco m e o f th e trial u n les s th e c o u rt is al s o s at i s fi ed thatt he tr i al w as fr ee of nonharm l es s cons t i tut i onal e rr o r.” Id . a t 3 1 6 , 1 1 5 S .C t. a t 8 6 1
. A s appl i ed t o t he ca s e bef or e us , the pr ece dent s w e have c ited e sta b lish th a t itw a s G o ld b lu m ’s o b lig a tio n to p u t f o rth “new r el i abl e evi dence

. . . notpr es ent ed attr i al , ” H ubbar d, 378 F. 3d at340 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) , s uch as “excu l patorysci enti fi c evidence, trustw orthyey ew i t ness acc ount s , orcr i t i cal phy s i cal evi dence

. ” Schl up, 513 U
. S. at 324, 115 S. C t
. at865. G ol dbl um poi nt s t o t w o pi ece s of evi dence t hathe r egar ds as “new r el i abl e evi dence ” that demonstr at e hi s i nnocenc e: ( 1) a l eadi ng experti n bl ood s pat t er evi dence , D r . W echt , w ho di d nott es t i fyatthe tr i al w i t h r es pect to the b loo d sp att er e v iden ce , h as o ff ere d h is op inion that M il ler, and notG ol dbl um , m ur der ed W i l hel m ; and ( 2) M i l l erconfe s s ed t o a mem berof the St at e B oar d of Par dons and the att orney g e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia th a t h e p a rticip a ted a lo n g w ith G o ld b lu m in th e a c tu a l m u rd e r. W h ile w e h a v e se rio u s d o u b tsE v id e n c e is n o t “n e w ” if it w a s a v a ilab le a t trial, b u t a 14 pet i t i oner“mer el ychos e nott o pr es ent itt o t he j ury . ” H ubbar d, 378 F. 3d at340. I n t hats i tuat i on , the ch o i ce nott o pr es entthe evi dence “does notopen the gat ew ay . ” Id

. G ol dbl um does not cont end thatD r . W echtw as notw i l l i ng and able to test i fyat G ol dbl um ’ s t r i al as t o hi s opi ni on. R ather , the r ecor d s how s that G ol dbl um ’ s att or ney chos e not t o obt ai n an expe rtopi ni on fort he tr ia l. T h is d y in g d e c lar a tio n c lea rlyh a s tw o re a so n a b le

15 in terp re tatio n s. It is e q u a llyre a so n a b le to b e liev e th a t W ilh e lm co u ld h av e b e e n say ing that M il ler st ab b ed h im o r th at M il ler, th o u g h n o t s ta b b in g h im , s e t h im u p f o r h is d e m is e . 41 w hetherD r . W echt ’ s opi ni on cons t i tut es ei t her“new ” or 14

“ re lia b le ” e v id e n c e , o r w h e th e r M ille r’ s c o n f e s s io n is “ re lia b le ,” w e w i l l as s um e fort he purpos es of thi s appea l thathe has s a t i s f i e d s t e p o n e o f

t h e two - s t e p “ a c tu a l i n n o c e n c e ” i n q u i r y . Of c o u rse , the re liab ili tyo f th e e v id e n c e c e rta in lysh o u ld a n d w ill be co nsi dered i n st ep tw o o f t he an al y si s i n w hich w e m ust p r e d i c tt h e l i k e l y i m p a c to f th e n e w e v i d e n c e o n th e j u r y. W e fi nd t hatt hes e ci r cumst ance s do notpr es entthe “extr aor di naryi ns t ance [] ” w her e “i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthat no r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed [G ol dbl um ] i n l i ghtof t he new evi dence

. ” Schl up, 513 U
. S. at327, 115 S. C t
. at867 ( emphasi s added)

. T hi s hi gh s t andar d s uppl i es the bas i s by w hi ch w e ar e bound t o j udge thi s cas e and G ol dbl um ’ s s how i ng, f o r t h e re a s o n s w e w ill d is c u s s , f a lls s h o rt
. G ol dbl um poi nt s t o s even pi ece s of evi dence pr es ent ed at t he tr i al w hi ch he be l i eves “demonstr at ed thatthi s w as a onem an as s aul t , and the evi dence poi nt ed s t r ongl yt ow ar ds M i l l er . ” A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at9. Fi r s t , he poi nt s t o t he dy i ng decl ar at i on that W i l hel m m ade t o t he pol i ce w her ei n he s t at ed, “C l ar ence M i l l er di d t hi s t o m e. ” Second, he di s t i ngui s hes the s m al l s potfound 15 on hi s s hi r tcuff

t hatno w i t nes s i dent i fi ed pos i t i vel yas bl ood w i t h t he exc es s i ve bl ood found on M i l l er ’ s cl othes

. T hi r d, he b e liev e s th a t th e d e f

e n siv e c u ts o n W ilh e lm ’s h a n d s a n d m u lti p le cut s and s l as hes on hi s t or s o, fr ont , back, head a nd fac e, s howG ol dbl um al s o has br oughtt o ourat t ent i on a l et t erdat ed 16 Ja n u a ry1 4 , 1 9 9 4 , fr o m th e sta te tria l ju d g e su p p o rtin g h is ap p li cat i on forcl emency , and an a ffi davi tdat ed J une 17, 1998, fr om t he tr i al pr os ecut ori n w hi ch he i ndi cat es t hati n l i ghtof new i nform at i on unavai l abl e t o hi m att he t i m e of tr ial ( he does not ind ica te w h at th e n ew inf o rm ati o n is) , h e h as “ co m e to th e v ery fi r m concl us i on t hatC har l es G ol dbl um had not hi ng t o do w i t h the m urder of G eorge W i l helm otherthan b e in g a fri gh t ened w i t ness t o thatm urd e r a nd an acc essoryaft er the fa ct
. ” W hil e t hese document s ar e not ew or t hy , t hey ar e notevi dence i nas m uch as t hey m er el yoffe rpers onal fee l i ngs aboutt he ca s e pr es ent ed dec ades aft ert he tr i al and have no bear i ng i n thes e pr ocee di ngs g iven the cont extof thi s cas e. R ather , t he tw o l et t er s w oul d be mat er i al i n an a t t e mptt o o b t a i n e x e c u t i v e c l e me n c y , a t yp e o f p r o c e e d i n g n ot cons t r ai ned by es t abl i s hed rul es of j udi ci al pr ocedur e. O f cour s e, w e are no t im p ly ing that if G o ldb lum see k s ex ec u ti v e c lem en cyo r, fort hatm att era par ol e, t he deci di ng author i t y s houl d cons i derthe lette rs a s it is n o t o u r f

u n c tio n to p a ss o n th a t p o in t. 42 t hatt hi s w as a one- per s on at t ack on a m ovi ng t ar get
. Four t h, he all eg es th at th ere w as n o fo ren sic ev iden ce su p p o rt ing M il ler’s c o n ten tio n th a t G o ld b lu m b e g a n th e a ss a u lt b yh itt in g W ilh e lm i n the back of h i s head w i t h a w rench. F i ft h, M i l l er had fresh s cr at ches on hi s for earm s and w r i s t s 14 hour s aft erthe homi ci de w h i l e G o l d b l u m d i d n o th a v e a n y s c r a t c h e s . S i x t h , b l a c k v i n yl g lov es re co v ere d fro m the s ce n e w ere stai n ed w ith W il h elm ’s b l o o d a n d h a d h a i r s c o n s i s t e n tw i t h M i l l e r ’ s a r m h a i r . F i n a l l y, th e b lo o d sp a tter in d ica ted th a t th e b lo o d w a s c a st o f f in a lef t to r i ghtm ovement , s ugges t i ng thatthe ki l l erw as i n t he fr ont p a ss e n g e r se a t. 16 Al l o f t h i s e v i d e n c e wa s p r e s e n t e d t o th e j u r y . As we have s t at ed, now G ol dbl um r ai s es tw o new pi ece s of evi dence w h ich h e b eli ev es su p p o rth is cl aim o f in n o ce n ce : exp ert t es t i m onys uppor t i ng hi s ar gum entt o t he j urythatthe bl ood s patt erdemonstr at ed thatthe ki l l ers ati n t he fr ontpas s enger s eat , and M i l l er ’ s confe s s i on t o a mem berof the St at e B oar d of Par dons and the att or neygener al of Penns y l vani a thathe and G o ld b lu m w e re in v o lv e d d ire c tlyin th e m u rd e r. E ss e n tiallyW e se t fo rth this sen tenc e in th e f o rm o f a ll 1 2 m em b ers 17 o f th e ju ryre a c h in g a d if f e re n t re su lt b e c a u se S c h lu p s p e a k s in t erm of “no” r eas onabl e j ur or vot i ng t o convi ct i n l i ght of t he new evi dence

. A ctual l y , w e ar e confi dent t hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw ho vot ed t o convi ctw oul d notvot e t o convi ctaft er co n sider i ng t he new evi dence

. T hus , byourfr ami ng of th e inq u ir y w e do not i n t e n d t o i mp l yt h a t s o me j u r o r s mi g h t c h a n g e t h e i rmi n d s b u ts o me w o u ld n o t. 43 t hen, t he ques t i on comes dow n t o t hi s : I n t he cont extof a rea so n ab le j u ror’s rev iew o f a ll o f th e e v iden ce , is th e e x p ert bl ood s patt erevi dence and M i l l er ’ s confe s s i on s o per s uas i ve and excul pat or yt hatal l 12 m ember s of a j uryw ho vot ed t o convi ct G ol dbl um of fi r s t
- degr ee mur dernow w oul d change thei rm i nds to th e e n d th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t n o n e o f th e m w o u ld v o te to c o n v ict? T h e a n sw e r to th a t q u e stio n is u n d o u b ted ly 17 n o . W e start w ith o u r ex am ination o f D r. W ec h t’ s ex p ert opi ni on. D r . W echt , an expe r ti n for ens i c pathol ogy , s ubm i t t ed an af fi davi tw her ei n he “c oncl uded t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal cert ai nt yt hatM r . G ol dbl um w as notthe i ndi vi dual w ho i n f l i c t e d t h e f

a t a l s t a b wo u n d s t o M r . Wi l h e l m. ” Ap p . a t2 1
. He b a se d th is o p in io n o n a n u m b e r o f f a c to rs, th o u g h p re d o m in a n tly o n h is find ing that the b loo d sp att er o n the d ash b o ard demonstr at ed thatt he per s on i n t he fr onts eatt o t he r i ghtof W i l hel m , i

. e. , M i l l er , i nfl i ct ed the s t ab w ounds

. A ddi t i onal l y , he c o n sid e re d th e lac k o f

b lo o d f o u n d o n G o ld b lu m ’s c lo th e s in contr as tt o M i l l er ’ s heavi l ys t ai ned cl othes , M i l l er ’ s bl oods t ai ned gl oves found atthe cr i m e s cene , and W i l hel m ’ s dy i ng d e c la ra tio n . O n d ir ec t exa m ination at th e P C R A rem an d h ea ri n g , D r. W echtr epea t ed hi s concl us i on and el abor at ed on the bas es for hi s opi ni on. H e opi ned thati tw as “hi ghl yi m pl aus i bl e” that G ol dbl um i nfl i ct ed the w ounds on W i l hel m gi ven thatbl ood w as notfound on G ol dbl um ’ s cl othes

. I d. at129. A ddi t i onal l y , he tes tifie d th a t th e g lo v e s f o u n d n e a r th e sc e n e sta in e d w ith W ilh e lm ’s b lo o d c o n tain e d a rm o r h a n d h a irs c o n sis ten t w ith44 M i l l er ’ s butnotG ol dbl um ’ s . A l s o, D r . W echtfound r el evant t hat M i l l er w as observed the dayaft er the m urder w i t h fresh s cr at ches on hi s arm s and fa ce, butno s uch s cr at ches w er e found on G ol dbl um . M os ts i gni fi cant l y , D r . W echtopi ned thatthe b lo o d sp a tter “ c a st o f

f ,” w ith th e “ tails” m o v in g f ro m lef t to r i ghtas found on the das hboar d, “ar e ent i r el ycons i s t entw i t h and but t r es s and s uppor tt he conc l us i on” thatM i l l eri nfl i ct ed the w o u n d s a s h e w a s s itt in g in th e f ro n t p a ss e n g e r se a t n e x t to W i l helm , rather than byG oldbl um w ho sati n the r ear dr i ver’ ss i de s eat
. I d. at132. C r os s - exami nat i on, how ever , s i gni fi cant l yunderm i ned th e d e f in iti v e n e ss a n d re liab ili tyo f D r. W e c h t’s o p in io n . In f a c t, D r. W e c h t co n c e d e d th a t h e c o u ld n o t “r u le o u t” th e p o ss ib ili ty t hatt he bl ood came fr om G ol dbl um w ho goti ton hi s hand w hen “he w as exi t i ng t he vehi cl e. ” I d. at160. M or eover , he t es t i fi ed t hathe eve n coul d notbe ce r t ai n t hatthe s pat t er ed bl ood w as W ilh e lm ’s a s it n e v e r w a s te s te d to a s c e rt a in w h o s e b lo o d it w a s . H e al s o conce ded thats om eone i n t he bac k s eatcoul d have caus ed the form at i on of the bl ood s pat t erbyr eac hi ng overt o t he fro n t seat. G o ldb lum , o f c o u rse, w as sitt ing in the b ac k sea t. D r. W echtagr eed thatt he ci r cumst ance thatG ol dbl um w as w ear i ng t w o l ay er s of cl ot hi ng coul d expl ai n t he l ack of bl ood found on h im

. A s w e have i ndi cat ed, the C om m onw eal t h cal l ed a fo ren sic co n su lt an t, T o b yW o lson , to resp o n d to D r. W ec h t’ s t es t i m ony . W ol s on found thatbeca us e the des cr i pt i on of the bl ood s patt erw as “l i m i t ed, ” he w as pr event ed fr om m aki ng “a m or e r el i abl e i nt erpr et at i on of the ca us e ornatur e of that part i cul arpatt ern. ” I d. at212. H e opi ned thatther e w er e “other t ypes of s i tuat i ons t hatm aycr eat e [the] patt erns ” thatD et ect i ve Fr eeman des cr i bed bes i des cas toff. I d. at215. H e conc l uded t hatt her e w as “[n] otenough document at i on t o s ayw hi ch w as t he mostl i kel ycaus e of [ t he] patt ern, ” as the s pat t ercoul d have come fr om s t ab w ounds m ade bys om eone r eac hi ng overthe fr onts eatorfr om defe ns i ve hand w ounds fr om the vi ct i m . I d. at 218. H e opi ned that , i n l i ghtof the l ack of document at i on, no expertcoul d r eac h anyconcl us i on thatw as anyt hi ng m or e than “hypot het i cal , ” i d. , and “c om i ng t o a conc l us i on as t o w ho m ay45 have done and cr eat ed the patt ern on the das hboar d and w i ndow i s i m pos s i bl e. ” I d. at219. H e found that“due t o t he i ns uffi ci ent document at i on, ” he c oul d not“t el l y ou i f i tw as the per s on sittin g in th e f

ro n t se a t o r b a c k se a t.” Id . at 2 2 6 . W ith re sp e c t to t he dy i ng decl ar at i on, he opi ned thati t“i s open t o i nt erpr et at i on as t o w hati tr eal l ym eans , ” and thatthe hai rfound on the bl oody g lo v e s w a s n o t re liab le a s f a c ial a n d b o d yh a irs, a s o p p o se d to h e a d a n d p u b ic h a ir, d o n o t p ro v id e f o r a re liab le f

o re n sic eval uat i on. I d. at228. In li g h t of

this ev iden ce , w e a re sa ti sfied that D r. W ec h t’ s expertt es t i m onyr egar di ng the bl ood s pat t erw oul d nothave ha d a n a p p re c iab le, le t alo n e h e a v y , im p a c t o n a re a so n a b le ju ro r in t hi s cas e forfourr eas ons . Fi r s t , G ol dbl um ’ s tr i al at t orney pr es ent ed ci r cumst ant i al evi dence r egar di ng the bl ood s pat t er su g g e stin g th a t th e p e rso n in th e f ro n t p a ss e n g e r se a t, M ill e r, d id t he s t abbi ng. I ndeed, G ol dbl um ar gued attr i al thatthe w eapon w i t h w hi ch W i l hel m w as s t abbed w as w i t hdr aw n i n a hor i zont al m ot i on, s pl as hi ng a tr ai l of bl ood hor i zont al l yacr os s the d a s h b o a r d f

r o m t h e l e f

tt o r i g h tt o w a r d s th e p a s s e n g e rs e a t
. We a re sa tisf ied th a t an e x p e rt o p in io n w h ich m e re lyre c a sts th is ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , thatw as w el l w i t hi n t he gr as p of a r eas onabl e j ur orw i t houtthe ai d of an e xper t , w oul d nothave a sign ifi ca n t i n flu en ce o n a re aso n ab le j u ror. S e c o n d , the re liab ili tyo f D r. W e c h t’s o p in io n s is c e rta in ly su sp e c t an d a re a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld n o t g iv e e n o u g h w e ig h t to t hem t o change hi s orherm i nd as t o G ol dbl um ’ s gui l t
. A s C hi ef J us t i ce Rober t s w r ot e i n hi s di s s enti n H ous e, “the new evi dence i s nots i m pl yt aken a tfac e val ue; i t s r el i abi l i t yhas t o be t es t ed. ” H ous e, 126 S. C t
. at2088 ( R ober t s . C
. J
. , di s s ent i ng)

. I ti s cl ear t hatt he abs ence of phot ogr aphs depi ct i ng the bl ood s pat t er , even if i t do es n o t prec lud e D r. W ec h t from o ff ering an ex p ert o p in io n , c e rt a in ly ca s ts d o u b t o n th e re lia b ility o f th a t o p in io n . T h e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s e x p e rt, M r. W o lso n , tes tifie d th a t a num berof di ffe r ents cena r i os coul d have c aus ed the bl ood s patt erform at i on t hatD et ect i ve Fr eeman des cr i bed, and, w i t hout fur t herdocument at i on, anyopi ni on as t o t he expl anat i on forthe p att ern o f th e b loo d sp att er w as m ere sp ec u lat ion

. M o reo v er,I t i s not cl ear t o us w hythe expe r t s w er e perm i t t ed t o gi ve 18 t hei rvi ew s of the s i gni fi canc e of the dy i ng decl ar at i on. G ol dbl um cont ends t hat“[t ] he s t at e court s w er e . . . w r ong 19 i n rul i ng t hatt he expe r tt es t i m onyw oul d not have l ed t o a di ffe r ent re su lt (an d d id n o t s h o w in n o c e n c e ) o n th e th e o ryth a t ev e n if M i l l erw as t he per s on w ho s t abbed W i l hel m t o death, G ol dbl um co u ld st il l h av e be en co n v ict ed as an ac co m p li ce . ” A p p ell an t’ s b r. at26. H e ar gues t hat “[i ] ti s i m pos s i bl e t o det erm i ne w hetherthe j ur yfound [hi m ] gui l t y as t he s t abber or as an acc om pl i ce . . . [and th a t] it m u s t b e a s s u m e d th a t th e ju ryf o u n d th a t h e d ire c tly in f licte d th e m o rta l w o u n d s.” Id . H e b u ild s o n th is c o n ten tio n to ar gue that“[i ] ti s fundament al t hata ver di ctcannotbe s us tai ned w h e r e a j u ry ma y h a v e d e c i d e d o n o n e o f t wo g r o u n d s , one of w hi ch w oul d be i m perm i s s i bl e, ” ci t i ng Y at es v. U ni t ed St at es , 354 U .S . 2 9 8 , 7 7 S .C t. 10 6 4 (1 9 5 7 ), o n th is p o in t. W e nee d notl i ngeron t hi s poi nt beca us e i n U ni t ed St at es v. S yme , 2 7 6 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) , we i n d i c a t e d t h a twe foll ow t he rul e t hat “[w ]hen a cri m i nal defend ant app eal s a 46 D r . W echton cr os s - exami nat i on conce ded thatthe evi dence of b lo o d s p a tte r d id n o t ru le o u t th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s th e o ry. T hi r d, D r . W echt ’ s concl us i on thatG ol dbl um di d not d ire c tlyp a rticip a te in th e m u rd e r w a s p a rtiallyth e re su lt o f h is p erso n al view o f n o n -fo ren sic ev iden ce , su ch as W il h elm ’s dy i ng decl ar at i on, al r eadybefor e the j ury . W e do nots ee how D r. W e c h t’s o p in io n o n th e se p a rticu lar m a tters , w h ich in a c tu a lityd o n o t se e m to re q u ire a g re a t am o u n t o f sc ien tific expert i s e ( i f anyatal l ) and w er e cl ear l ycompre hens i bl e bythe j u r ya tt h e t r i a l , d i s p o s i t i v e l ywo u l d h a v e i n f l u e n c e d th e m. 18 L a stly , the C o m m o n w e a lth tried th e c a se o n th e a ltern a te t heo ryt hat G oldbl um w as an acco m pli ce t o the m urder. B ecause t he j ur ydi d notm ake a s peci fi c fi ndi ng as t o w hetherG ol dbl um w as gui l t yas an ac compl i ce orforcomm i t t i ng the ac tual s t abbi ng, even i f a j ur ybel i eved D r . W echt ’ s s pecul at i ve t es t i m onyon t he s i gni fi canc e of the bl ood s pat t er , w e s ee no reas on w hyi tw ou l d h ave reached a differ ent r esul t
. F or these 19convi ct i on i n w hi ch the pr os ecu ti on pr es ent ed more t han one theo ryo f g u il t and the ju ryreturn ed a g en era l verd ict

. . . a r evi ew i ng courts houl d as s um e that the j uryconvi ct ed on the f a c tu a lly su f

f ic ie n t th e o ry a n d s h o u ld le t th e ju ry v e rd ic t s ta n d .” T h o u g h t h e r e i s a n e x c e p t i o n i n c a s e s “ i f th e i n d i c t me n to rt he d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u r yi n s t ru c t i o n s a r e b a s e d o n a n e r r o n eous in te rp re ta tio n o f

la w o r c o n ta in a m is ta k e n d e s c ri p tio n o f th e la w ,” id . a t 1 4 5 , th e e x c e p tio n is n o t a p p lic a b le h e re . I n appl y i ng Sy m e, w e poi ntoutthatD r . W echt ’ s t es t i m ony m e re lyw o u ld h a v e b e e n a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e th a t in n o w a yc o u ld h a v e u n d e rm in e d th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s a c c o m p lice th e o ryo f g u ilt

. W e w i l l notbyt he us e of s om e t or tur ed l ogi c confi ne Sy m e s o t hat it does no tapp l yhere. W e al so ob serve thatthis case i s a part i cul ar l yappr opr i at e one i n w hi ch t o appl y Sy m e becaus e eve n t hough t he G ol dblum j uryobvi ous l ycoul d nothave c ons i der ed M i l l er ’ s confe s s i on m ade l ong aft er G ol dbl um ’ s t r i al t o a mem ber of the St at e B oar d of Par dons and the att orneygener al of P e n n sy lv a n ia, G o ld b lu m is u si n g th e c o n f e ss io n , w h ich a t a m in im u m su p p o rts a n a c c o m p lice th e o ry o f g u ilt , a s a b a sis f o r h is a c tu a l in n o c e n c e a rg u m e n t. 47 r eas ons , w e conc l ude thata r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d nothave g iven sign ifi ca n t w eigh t t o D r. W ec h t’ s sp ec u lat ive e x p ert t es t i m onyi n t he s ens e thatthe t es t i m onyw oul d have a ffe ct ed the ju ro r’s re su lt. W e now di s cus s the s econd pi ece of new evi dence , M il ler’s co n fe ssion

. In a d ep o sit ion o n Ju n e 7 , 1 9 9 9 , R icha rd G i gl i ot t i , att he t i m e the w ar den of the B ut l erC ount yJ ai l and a m emberof the Penns y l vani a B oar d of Par dons , t es t i fi ed thaton A pr i l 29, 1999, abouta w eek be for e G ol dbl um ’ s B oar d of Par dons ’ hear i ng, he, al ong w i t h t he att orneygener al of Penns y l vani a, m etw i t h M i l l eratthe W es t ern Peni t ent i aryand a s k e d h i m q u e s t i o n s a b o u tG o l d b l u m ’ s c a s e . P r e l i m i n a r i l y, M i l l ert ol d t hem t hatG ol dbl um w as “the mast erm i nd” behi nd t he l and fr aud. A pp. at326. M i l l eral s o m ent i oned the ar s on but G i gl i ot t i coul d notgi ve s peci fi c det ai l s r egar di ng thatas pectof t he ca s e. E ventual l y , M i l l ert ol d G i gl i ot t i thathe no l onger48 “ d e n ie d d ir e c t in v o lv e m e n t in th e a c tu a l s ta b b in g o f [ W ilh e lm ],” b u t ra th e r “ h e n o w o p e n lya d m its h is in v o lv e m e n t alo n g w ith G ol dbl um ’ s i nvol vementi n t he s t abbi ng and murde rof the vi ct i m . ” I d. at327- 28. Speci fi cal l y , G i gl i ot t i t es t i fi ed that M i l l ert ol d hi m t hat“G ol dbl um w as s i t t i ng i n t he bac k s eatand in f lic te d th e f

ir s t w o u n d b yc o m in g o v e r t h e s h o u ld e r o f

. . . W i l hel m and s t abbi ng hi m i n, i n t he l ow erches tors t om ach ar ea. ” I d. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatM i l l ert ol d hi m “G ol dbl um defi ni t el ys t ar t ed the s t abbi ng and then he t ook t he bl ade f r om G ol dbl um orG ol dbl um handed hi m the bl ade a nd M i l l er cont i nued the s t abbi ng, ” butM i l l erdi d nothave a “cl ear r ecol l ect i on” as t o how m anyt i m es eac h of them st abbed W i l hel m . I d. at328- 29. B a se d o n th is te stim o n y , G o ld b lu m a rg u e s th a t “[ w ]h ile M i l l ercont i nues t o cl ai m thatG ol dbl um al s o t ook parti n t he s t abbi ng, t hi s dr amat i c cha nge of t es t i m onyi s fur t hers ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e o f

th e in n o c e n c e .” A p p e lla n t’ s b r. a t 3 6 . W e d is a g re e . A ft eral l , M i l l er ’ s s t at ementt o G i gl ot t i , r atherthan exone r at i ng G o ld b lu m , im p lica tes h im in th e m u rd e r. A t th e v e rym o st, M ill e r’s sta tem e n t f

u rth e r im p e a c h e s h is c re d ib ili ty , b u t th is eff ecti s nots i gni fi cant
. W hen as s es s i ng thi s type of ne w evi dence , w e s houl d “cons i derhow the t i m i ng of the s ubm i s s i on a n d th e lik e lyc re d ib ili tyo f th e a f f ian ts b e a r o n th e p ro b a b le re liab ili tyo f

th a t ev id e n c e .” S c h lu p , 5 1 3 U .S . at 3 3 2 , 1 1 5 S .C t. at870. H er e, t her e al r eadyw as cons i der abl e evi dence befor e the j ur yt hatM i l l er ’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e. A m ong ot her i m peac hm entevi dence , i tw as pr es ent ed t o t he j urythathe l i ed t o t he pol i ce w hen he i ni t i al l ydeni ed hi s i nvol vementand then la te r a d m itte d th a t h e h a d lu re d W ilh e lm in to th e g a ra g e . M ill e r’s d if

f e re n t v e rsio n o f

th e e v e n ts w o u ld n o t sig n if ica n tly fur t herharm hi s al r eadys t r ongl yi m peac hed t es t i m ony . T he fa ct t hatM i l l erm ayhave de ci ded t o “come cl ean” m or e than 20 y ear s aft erG ol dbl um ’ s cr i m i nal tr i al , i f he di d s o, i s not per s uas i ve. M or eover , w hi l e w e do notunder s t and w hyM i l l er w oul d have ha d a mot i ve t o l i e t o G i gl i ot t i , w e equa l l ydo not under s t and w hyhe w oul d have a new m ot i ve t o t el l the truth at th a t late d a te. S u c h e v id e n c e d o e s n o t ca rryg re a t w e ig h t.49 I n s um , m er e cumul at i ve i m peac hm entevi dence , al ong w i t h D r . W echt ’ s expertt es t i m onyand al l of the evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al , i s not“s o s t r ong” thatw e do nothave
“ c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tco m e o f th e trial” su c h th a t “n o re a so n a b le j ur orcoul d have f

ound [G ol dbl um ] gui l t y . ” Schl up, 513 U
. S. at 316, 329, 115 S. C t
. at861, 868 ( emphasi s added)

. A ppl y i ng w hatC hi ef J us t i ce Rober t s s ai d i n hi s di s s enti n H ous e, “[t ] he ques t i on i s notw hether[G ol dbl um ] w as pr ej udi ced a thi s tr i al beca us e the j ur or s w er e notaw ar e of the new evi dence , but w hetheral l t he evi dence , cons i der ed t ogether , pr oves that [G ol dbl um ] w as actual l yi nnocent , s o t hatno r eas onabl e j ur or w ou l d v ote t o co nv i cthim

. ” H ou se, 12 6 S
. C t
. at20 87 (R ob ert s, C
. J
. , di s s ent i ng)

. W hi l e G ol dbl um m ayhave be en pr ej udi ced by h is f a ilu re to p re se n t th is n e w e v id e n c e , ev e n w ith it h e sim p ly c a n n o t m e e t th e s tr in g e n t b u rd e n th a t a p p lie s to o u r r e v ie w . A co m p arison o f tw o rec en t case s, the S u p rem e C o u rt opi ni on i n H ous e, 126 S. C t
. 2064, and ouropi ni on i n A l br echtv. H o rn, 48 5 F
. 3 d 1 0 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ), reinf o rce s o u r co n clus ion

. In H ous e, 126 S. C t
. at2068, the def endantw as convi ct ed of the m ur derof C ar ol yn M unceyi n s pi t e of hi s cont ent i on attr i al that M r s . M uncey ’ s hus band comm i t t ed the murde r . T he r es ul t s of a t es t i ng t hatt he FB I r an on M r s . M uncey ’ s ni ght gow n and pant i es and def endant ’ s j eans w er e ce ntr al t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s cas e. I d. at2072. Speci fi cal l y , attr i al the pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed evi dence t hat s em en co nsi st ent w i t h the defen dan t ’s w as fou nd on M rs . M uncey ’ s ni ght gow n and pant i es , and s m al l bl oods t ai ns c o n s is te n t w ith h e r b lo o d w e re f o u n d o n th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s je a n s . T he pr os ecut i on ar gued, and the j uryappar ent l ybel i eved, that th e d e f e n d a n t co m m itt e d o r a ttem p ted to c o m m it a s e x u a l as sa u lt o n M rs . M u n c e ya n d k ille d h e r w h e n s h e re s is te d

. T he def endants oughthabea s corpus r el i ef a s s ert i ng cl ai m s of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and pr os ecut or i al mi s c o n d u c t
. I d

. a t2 0 7 5
. Th e g o v e r n me n ta r g u e d th a tth e c l a i ms w ere pr oced ural l ydefa ult ed b ecause the defen dan tdid not r ai se th e m in h is f

ir s t p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p ro c e e d in g in th e s ta te c o u rt
. T he def endantr es ponded thathe had ne w evi dence that underm i ned the s emen and bl ood evi dence the pr os ecut i on i nt r oduced a tt r i al , and thus , hi s pr ocedur al defa ul ts houl d be50 e x c u s e d u n d e rt h e “ a c tu a l i n n o c e n c e ” th e o r y . Th e S u p r e me C o u rt a g re e d w ith th e d e f e n d a n t. T he def endanti ntr oduced thr ee ke ypi ece s of new evi dence

. Fi r s t , he pr es ent ed new D N A t es t i ng s how i ng thatthe s e me n f o u n d o n M r s . M u n c e y ’ s n i g h t g o wn a n d p a n t i e s c a me fro m h er h u sb an d an d n o t from h im

. Id. at 20 7 8 -79
. T h e C o u rt concl uded thatt hi s new evi dence cas tdoubton t he s exual m ot i ve pr es ent ed byt he pr os ecut i on attr i al and r emoved key phy s i cal evi dence l i nki ng t he def endantt o t he cr i m e. I d. at 2 0 7 9
. Second, t he def

endantpr es ent ed the expe r tt es t i m onyof a for ens i c pathol ogi s tw ho t es t i fi ed thatthe bl ood found on the defe ndant ’ s pant s “w as chemi cal l yt oo degr aded, and t oo s i m i l ar t o b l oo d co l l ect ed d uri ng the au t op sy , t o h ave co m e from M rs . M uncey ’ s bodyon t he ni ghtof the cr i m e. ” I d. at2080. T he d e f e n d a n t als o p re se n ted e v id e n c e re v e a lin g th a t th e b lo o d v ials fr om t he aut ops yw er e pac ked i n a ca r dboar d box w i t h t he d ef en d an t’ s p an ts du ri n g the tran sp o rto f th e e v iden ce to the F B I, i n vi ol at i on of pr operpr ocedur e, and thatr oughl ya vi al and a hal f of the bl ood s ampl es s pi l l ed dur i ng the tr ans por t
. I d. T he C our tfound that“the evi dent i arydi s arr ays urr oundi ng the bl ood” al ong w i t h t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony“w oul d pr event r eas onabl e j ur or s fr om pl aci ng s i gni fi cantr el i ance on t he bl ood e v id e n c e .” Id . a t 2 0 8 3
. T hi r d, t he def

endants uppl i ed evi dence fr om peopl e w ho knew t he M uncey s , s ugges t i ng thatthe otherm ai n s us pecti n t he cas e, M r . M uncey , r egul ar l yabus ed hi s w i fe, as w el l as t es t i m onyt hatM r . M unceyconfe s s ed t o t he murde rar ound t he t i m e of the def

endant ’ s tr i al and thatM r . M unceyhad the o p p o rtu n ityto co m m itthe c ri m e. Id. at2 0 8 3 -84
. T h e C o u rt found thatw hi l e “[ t ] he evi dence poi nt i ng t o M r . M unceyi s by n o m e a n s c o n c lu s iv e ” a n d “ [ i] f c o n s id e re d in is o la tio n , a re a s o n a b le ju ry m ig h t w e ll d is re g a rd it,” “ [ i] n c o m b in a tio n . . . w i t h t he cha l l enges t o the bl ood evi dence and the l ack of m ot i ve w ith resp ec t t o [th e d ef en d an t] , the e v iden ce p o inti n g to M r. M unceyl i kel yw oul d r ei nfor ce otherdoubt s as t o [the defe ndant ’ s ] gui l t
. ” I d. at2085.51 B as ed pr edomi nant l yon t hes e thr ee pi ece s of evi dence , t he C our tconcl uded thatw hi l e “[ t ] hi s i s nota ca s e of c oncl us i ve exoner at i on” and s om e of the evi dence “s t i l l s uppor t [s ] an i nfer ence of gui l t , ” “the ce ntr al for ens i c pr oof conne ct i ng [the defe ndant ] t o t he cr i m e–the bl ood and the s emen–has been ca ll ed into q u esti o n , an d [th e d ef en d an t] h as p u t fo rw ard s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e p o in tin g to a d if f e re n t s u s p e c t.” Id . a t 2 0 8 6
. A s w e poi nt ed outi n A l br echt , w i t h r es pectt o H ous e, 485 F. 3d at125, “[t ] he new D N A evi dence eff ect i vel ydes t r oy ed the t heoryof r ape a s t he mot i ve forthe murde r , ” and “ [w ] i t houtthe bl ood evi dence , [the def endant ] di d nothave a m ot i ve, butthe vi ct i m ’ s hus band di d. ” Thus, the Supr eme C our tfound that “al t hough t he i s s ue i s cl os e, ” thi s w as “the r ar e ca s e w her e, had t he j ur yhear d al l t he conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony , i ti s m or e l i kel ythan nott hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d l ack r eas onabl e doubt

. ” H o u s e , 1 2 6 S .C t. a t 2 0 8 6
. I n c o n t r a s tt o Ho u s e , i n Al b r e c h t , 4 8 5 F
. 3 d a t1 2 0

- 2 1 , we found thata def

endant , w ho w as convi ct ed of f i r s t
- degr ee m ur der , t w o count s of s econd- degr ee mur der , and ar s on for caus i ng t he dea t h of hi s w i fe, m other , and daught erbys et t i ng t he fa m i l yhom e on fi r e, di d notpr es entnew evi dence es t abl i s hi ng hi s “ac tual i nnocenc e” thatw oul d have pe r m i t t ed hi m t o pr ocee d w i t h hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on des pi t e the for fei tur e of hi s s t at e habe as corpus cl ai m s on pr ocedur al gr ounds

. A tt r i al , t he crux of the pr os ecut i on’ s cas e w as thatan a c t o f a rso n c a u se d th e f

ire a n d th e id e n tityo f

th e a rso n ist c o u ld be i nferr ed fr om t he vi ol ence and hos t i l i t ythe def endanthad di r ect ed t ow ar d hi s w i fe i n t he mont hs befor e the fi r e, i ncl udi ng r ece ntt hr eat s of burni ng dow n t he hous e. A s evi dence thatthe fi r e w as t he pr oductof ar s on, the pr os ecut i on i ntr oduced the t es t i m onyof a f

i r e expe r tw ho opi ned thatbas ed on the cha r patt erns , t he ar s oni s ts t art ed the fi r e byi gni t i ng gas ol i ne thathad been pour ed on the fl oor . T he def endant , on t he otherhand, w h ile a d m itt in g th a t h e a b u se d h is w if e , arg u e d th a t a c ig a re tte l eftt o s m ol deri n an uphol s t er ed cha i racc i dent al l ys t art ed the f ir e . T he def

endants oughthabea s corpus r el i ef, ar gui ng “that new devel opm ent s i n fi r e s ci ence pr ove hi s cl ai m of ac tual52 in n o c e n c e ,” th e re b ye x c u sin g th e p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt o f h is s tate habea s corpus cl ai m s . I d. at120. I n par t i cul ar , the def endant pr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof a f i r e pr ot ect i on engi neerw ho opi ned that “a ll o f th e o b serv ati o n s reli ed o n b y[th e p rose cu ti o n ’s fire expert ] t o s uppor thi s concl us i on thatthe fi r e w as s eti n t he k itch e n u sin g g a so lin e . . . are n o w u n d e rsto o d to b e e q u a lly cons i s t entw i t h an ac ci dent al fi r e thatr es ul t ed i n ful l r oom inv o lvem en t. ” Id

. at 12 0 -21
. T h u s, h e b eli ev ed “tha t th e f ir e coul d have be en ac ci dent al i n or i gi n, ” as “fi r e- s cene evi dence of a n a c c id e n tal f

ire th a t h a s re a c h e d f

u ll ro o m in v o lv e m e n t is ind ist ing u isha b le fro m the e v iden ce see n af ter an ince n d iaryfire th a t lik e w is e a f

f e c te d th e f

u ll r o o m .” Id . a t 1 2 4
. A cr i t i cal i s s ue bef

or e us w as w hether“i n l i ghtof [the] n e w e v id e n c e . . . ‘itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t n o re a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld h a v e f

o u n d p e tit io n e r g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.’” Id . at 1 2 1 (q u o tin g S c h lu p , 5 1 3 U .S . at 3 2 7 , 1 1 5 S .C t. a t 8 6 7 ). W e h e ld th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t s a tis f

ie d h is b u rd e n . Fi r s t , w e poi nt ed outt hatthe def ens e expe r t ’ s opi ni on di d not rul e outt he pos s i bi l i t ythatthe fi r e w as s eti nt ent i onal l y , as c o n c lu d e d b yth e p ro s e c u tio n ’s e x p e rt a t tr ia l. Second, w e compar ed the ca s e t o t he ci r cumst ance s befor e the Supr eme C our ti n H ous e. I n H ous e, the new evi dence underm i ned the or i gi nal evi dence poi nt i ng t o t he i dent i t yof the m ur der erand the mot i ve forthe murde r . O n t he otherhand, the new evi dence i n A l br echtm er el y“r ai s ed ques t i ons aboutthe a lle g e d in c e n d ia ry n a tu re o f th e f ir e , w h ile id e n tity a n d m o tiv e . .

. w er e es t abl i s hed byotherevi dence , ” and “ [t ] he s ubs t ant i al r emai nderof the C om m onw eal t h’ s cas e has notbeen di s cr edi t ed and pr ovi des ampl e evi dence of gui l t
. ” I d. Speci fi cal l y , the defe ns e expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony“di d not hi ng t o underm i ne the C om m on w eal t h’s dam aging ev i den ce of [t he d efen dan t ’s ] p a ttern o f

h o stilitya n d v io len c e to w a rd [ h is w if e ], h is a ttem p t to pur chas e gas ol i ne t o puti n a ca n t he daybefor e the fi r e, the i m m edi at e di s coveryof the empt yhy dr aul i c oi l can i n t he trunk of hi s cart hatt es t ed pos i t i ve forgas ol i ne, and hi s num er ous t hr eat s t o bur n dow n t he hous e and do f ur t herharm t o hi s w i fe. ” Id

.53 F inally , w e f

o u n d that the testi m o n yo f th e d ef en d an t’ s new expertdi d notcarrym uch w ei ghtbeca us e hi s t es t i m ony w as s i m i l art o t he tr i al t es t i m onyof anotherdefe ns e expe r tthat t he j ur yappar ent l yr ej ect ed, and eve n of the t es t i m onyof the p rose cu ti o n ’s ex p ert, w h o tho u g h h e testi fied at tri al th at th e f ir e w as i gni t ed w i t h gas ol i ne, on ext ens i ve cr os s - exami nat i on te s tif ie d a s to s o m e f

a c ts th a t s u p p o rt e d th e d e f e n s e ’s th e o ry. B as ed on thi s anal y s i s of the t es t i m ony , w e found thatthe defe ndant“ca nnotexpl oi tthe new s ci ent i fi c know l edge he r e, as s um i ng fort he s ake of ar gum entthati ti s new , beca us e of ampl e otherevi dence of gui l t ” s uch thatw e coul d not“conc l ude that, h ad the ju ryh ea rd a ll the c o n fli cti n g test im o n y , itis m o re l i kelyt han no tt hat no reasonab l e j uror vi ew i ng the record as a w h o le w o u ld la c k re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” Id . a t 1 2 6
. T he t eac hi ng of H ous e and A l br echts ur el yi s thatan a c tu a l in n o c e n c e in q u iryis f a c t in ten siv e a n d w e p a in sta k in g ly have made s uch an i nqui r yher e. W e fi nd thatthe new evi dence p u t f o rth in th is c a se is m u c h m o re in lin e w ith th e e v id e n c e in A l br echtt han the evi dence i n H ous e. I n H ous e, the new s ci ent i fi c bl ood and s emen evi dence r emoved t he al l eged s exual m ot i ve pr es ent ed t o t he j uryattr i al and s ugges t ed thatthe defe ndantw as noteven a tthe s cene of the murde r , j us tas the defe ns e ar gued att r i al

. A s the Supr eme C our tconcl uded, “the c e n tr a l f o re n s ic p ro o f

c o n n e c tin g [ th e d e f

e n d a n t] to th e c ri m e . .

. has been c al l ed i nt o ques t i on. ” H ous e, 126 S. C t
. at2086. T he cas e bef or e us i s s i gni fi cant l ydi ffe r ent
. I n ourcas e, the bl ood s patt erevi dence and M i l l er ’ s confe s s i on do notdetr actfr om G ol dbl um ’ s m ot i ve forthe murde r , as i ti s cl earthathe s t i l l had a mot i ve t o r el i eve hi m s el f of the debtdue W i l hel m and e lim in a te W ilh e lm ’s th re a ts o f re p o rtin g h is illeg a l ac tiv iti e s to t he author i t i es . A ddi t i onal l y , the new evi dence does notr emove G o ldb lum fro m the s ce n e o f th e m u rde r. In f ac t, M il ler’s c o n f e ss io n p u ts h im th e re a s a p a rticip a n t w h ich , o f c o u rse , is w h a t th e p ro se c u tio n c o n ten d e d a t th e trial. I n contr as tt o t he new evi dence i n H ous e, the new evi dence i n ourcas e i s m at er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om the evi dence i n A l br echt

. Fi r s t , the evi dence her e and i n A l br echt di d notel i m i nat e the pos s i bi l i t ythatthe cr i m e occ urr ed as s et54 f o rth b yth e p ro se c u tio n a t trial. L ik e th e f ire e x p e rt’s o p in io n in A l br echtt hatdi d notel i m i nat e the pos s i bi l i t ythatthe def endant inten ti o n all yset th e f

ir e a s the p rose cu ti o n arg u ed at tri al, D r. W echts i m i l ar l yconce ded thathi s opi ni on l eftopen the pos s i bi l i t yt hatG ol dbl um , w ho s ati n t he bac k s eat , coul d have d o n e th e s ta b b in g . S ec o n d , li k e the ex p ert t esti m o n yin A lbrec h t, D r. W echt ’ s t es t i m onyw oul d notcarr ys i gni fi cantw ei ghtw i t h t he j ur y . T he def

ens e i n t hi s cas e putfor t h s t r ong ci r cumst ant i al evi dence att r i al t hatt he bl ood s pat t erdemonstr at ed thatthe fr ont
- s eatpas s engerdi d t he s t abbi ng and i tar gued foradopt i on o f th is th eo ryto the jury

. T h ere is no ind icati o n that ex p ert te s tim o n yo n th is p o in t w o u ld le a d to a d if f e re n t c o n c lu s io n . A d d it ion all y , as d em o n str ated b ythe c ross -ex am ination o f D r. W echtatt he PC R A hear i ng and the convi nci ng t es t i m onyof the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ex p ert, M r. W o lson , D r. W ec h t’ s o p inion s are su b jec t to sig n if

ica n t im p e a c h m e n t g ro ss lyu n d e rm in in g h is c o n c lu sio n s. W e a re c o n v in c e d th a t a r e a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld re a c h th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n th a t w e re a c h

. Fi nal l y , l i ke the evi dence i n A l br echtw i t h r es pectt o t he fac t s of thatcas e, t he new evi dence her e does notunderm i ne e v id e n c e o f

G o ld b lu m ’s m o tiv e to k ill W ilh e lm , n o r d o e s it re m o v e h im f

ro m th e sc e n e o f

th e m u rd e r. A t th e v e rym o st, if t he j ur yhad bel i eved the new evi dence , w hi l e ther e w oul d have been a ques t i on how W i l hel m ’ s ki l l i ng unfol ded, the new evi dence w oul d nothave a bs ol ved G ol dbl um fr om the c o m m iss io n o f

th e c rim e . A f

tera ll, h e in iti a ted th e sc h e m e to l ur e W i l hel m t o t he parki ng gar age, w as pr es entatthe murde r s cene , had a s t r ong m ot i ve t o ki l l W i l hel m t o coverup other cr i m es t hathe had c om m i t t ed and e l i m i nat e the debthe ow ed, cons pi r ed w i t h M i l l ert o cr eat e an a l i bi , and att empt ed t o hi r e an as s as s i n t o ki l l M i l l er , t he pr os ecut i on’ s m ai n ey ew i t nes s , aft er b e in g a rre ste d f

o r th e m u rd e r. T h e n e w e v id e n c e d id n o th in g to underm i ne thi s verydamagi ng evi dence

. I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, w e s i m pl ycannotconcl ude thatno r eas onabl e j ur or w oul d vot e t o convi ctG ol dbl um even c ons i der i ng the new evi dence

.55 b. T he j uryi ns t ruct i on on acc om pl i ce liab ili ty Th e r e i s y e to n e mo r e i s s u e o n th i s a p p e a l

. Th e S u p r e me C o u rtin S ch lup stat ed that the a ctua l i n n o ce n ce stan d ard r equi r es t he court“t o m ake a pr obabi l i s t i c det erm i nat i on about w hatr eas onabl e, pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed j ur or s w oul d do. ” Schl up, 5 1 3 U .S . at 3 2 9 , 1 1 5 S .C t. at 8 6 8 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In th is re g a rd , G o ld b lu m a ss e rts in h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n th a t h is tr ial att o rne yw as in ef

fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to o b

ject t o the ju ry char ge on ac compl i ce l i abi l i t y . W hi l e, as w e al r eadyhave expl ai ned, w e do notm ake a n ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of the m e rits o f th e c a se , w e m u st e v a lu a te th e in stru c tio n to d e c id e if it w a s e rro n e o u s, a n d a ss u m in g it t o h a v e b e e n in c o rre c t, i f its corr ect i on, i n conj unct i on w i t h t he al l egedl ynew evi dence , w o u ld c h a n g e th e ju ro rs ’ m in d s a s to G o ld b lu m ’s g u ilt. T he tr i al courtj udge gave the fol l ow i ng i ns t ruct i on c o n c e r n i n g a c c o m p l i c e l i a b i l i t y:

N ow runni ng thr ough t hi s cas e i s the l egal q u e stio n o f

a n a c c o m p lice . A p e rso n m a yb e g u ilty o f a c rim e a lth o u g h h e d id n o t co m m it th e sp e c if ic offe ns e. T hi s occur s w hen he a ct s as an a c c o m p lic e o f

th e o n e w h o c o m m its th e c ri m e . A per s on i s an ac compl i ce orl egal l yacc ount abl e for t he conduc tof anotherw hen he: 1. W i t h i nt entof pr om ot i ng orfac i l i t at i ng the comm i s s i on of a cr i m e he a i ds oragr ees orat t empt s t o ai d s uch o t h e rp e r s o n i n p l a n n i n g o rc o mmi t t i n g th e c r i me orhe s ol i ci t s s uch otherper s on t o comm i tthe c ri m e . N ow , i n or dert o fi nd a per s on gui l t yas an acc om pl i ce, t he evi dence m us tbe es t abl i s hed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtof a s har ed cr i m i nal i nt entw i t h t he otherper s on. T hati s , both per s ons m u st i n tend that the c ri m inal ac t occ u r.56 N ow , w hatdoes thatm ean? B y‘ s har ed cr i m i nal i nt ent ’ w e mean thatboth m en, t o be found gui l t y , even though onl yone comm i t t ed the act , bot h i nt ended thatthe s peci fi c cr i m e, w hi ch w a s c o m p lete d , w a s in ten d e d . A n e x a m p le fo ll o w s: I f tw o m en sp ec ifi ca ll yag ree that theyare g o in g to k ill a n o th e r m a n , an d o n e m a n h o ld s h im a n d th e o th e r m a n sh o o ts h im , the ya re b o th g u ilty of fi r s tdegr ee mur derbeca us e one w as an acc om pl i ce i n t he hol di ng and the man w ho fi r ed t he s hot , of cour s e, i s gui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee mur der beca us e he i nfl i ct ed the w ound. An o t h e re x a mp l e o f

a c c o mp l i c e , i n th e l a w, i s t hi s : I f tw o m en agr ee t o r ob a bank a nd one man s t ands out s i de as the l ookoutand anotherm an goes i n, and the man w ho i s i ns i de the bank s hoot s and ki l l s a t el l er , t heyar e both gui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee m u rd e r, in c lu d in g th e m a n sta n d in g o u t f ro n t, b e c a u se h e w a s a n a c c o m p lice w h o w a s a c tiv e ly ai di ng t he man w ho w as i ns i de the bank per form i ng t he r obberyand both m en s houl d be gui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee mur derbeca us e of a s har ed cr i m i nal i nt entt o comm i tthats peci fi c cr i m e. N o w , an a c c o m p lice is o n e w h o k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n tar ilyc o o p e ra tes o r a id s a n o th e r in comm i t t i ng a cr i m e. H e i s notm er el ya pas s i ve by s t anderw ho happens t o obs erve an i l l egal act and does notpart i ci pat e i n i t
. N ori s he s om eone w h o se e s a c rim e b e in g c o m m itt e d a n d f a ils to re p o rt it t o th e p o lice . In ste a d , an a c c o m p lice is s om eone w ho know i ngl y , vol unt ar i l yand purpos el yj oi ns w i t h s om eone e l s e i n t he per form ance of thats peci fi c cr i m e. N o w , the C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e d e f

e n d a n t , Ch a r l e s Go l d b l u m, ei t herki l l ed G eor ge W i l hel m hi m s el f orw as an acc om pl i ce w i t h C l ar ence M i l l eri n t hatki l l i ng.57 M os ts i gni fi cant l ythe j udge l at eri ns t ruct ed the j uryon appl i cat i on of ac compl i ce l i abi l i t yt o t he s peci fi c fa ct s of the cas e: I n addi t i on, i f y ou fi nd thatevi dence es t abl i s hed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatC har l es G ol dbl um w as an ac compl i ce w i t h C l ar ence M i l l er i n t he i nt ent i onal ki l l i ng of G eor ge W i l hel m , y ou m ayfi nd t he def

endantgui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee m ur der

. I n t hatevent , y ou have t o concl ude that bot h G ol dbl um and M i l l eri nt ended t o ki l l G eor ge W i l hel m w hen theyt ook hi m up t her e [t o t he parki ng gar age] and thatG ol dbl um w as an ac co m p li ce w ith M il ler i n the k il li n g o f M r. W i l hel m . So, i n thatevent , i f y ou fi nd thatthe d e f e n d a n ti n t e n t i o n a l l yk i l l e d Ge o r g e W i l h e l m, y o u m ayfin d h im g u il tyo f f ir st de g ree m u rde r. If y ou fi nd t hathe w as an ac compl i ce i n s uch a k i l l i n g , a s I h a v e d e f

i n e d th a t , y o u ma ya l s o . On t he otherhand, i f y ou fi nd thatthe evi dence has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat G eor ge W i l hel m on t he ni ghti n ques t i on, orfai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatC har l es G ol dbl um w as an acc om pl i ce w i t h C l ar ence M i l l eri n t he i nt ent i onal ki l l i ng of G eor ge W i l hel m , y ou m us tfi nd the d e f e n d a n t n o t g u ilty o f

f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) G o ld b lu m b e liev e s th e in stru c tio n w a s “ p lain ly err oneous ” as i tdi d notr equi r e the C om m onw eal t h t o pr ove that G ol dbl um had the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l , w hi ch i s an el ementof fi r s t
- degr ee mur derunderPenns y l vani a l aw . A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at 3 1 -3 2 . S p e c if

ica lly , h e tak e s is su e w ith (1 ) th e “ sh a re d in ten t” l anguage i n t he fi r s ti ns t ruct i on w hi ch he c ont ends m i s l ed the j ur yi nt o bel i evi ng t hathe nee d nothave hi s ow n s peci fi c i nt ent t o ki l l , i

. e. , t he fl aw i n t he r obberyexampl e, and ( 2) the s ugges t i on i n t he s econd i ns t ruct i on thata fi ndi ng thathe i s an a c c o m p lice c o m p e ls th e ju ryto c o n c lu d e th a t h e h a d th e sp e c if ic inten t t o k il l, w h ich h e a rgu es “ p lace s the p rov erb ial ca rtb ef o re th e h o rse .” Id . at 3 3 -3 5 . T h e C o m m o n w e a lth b e liev e s th a t,58 over al l , t he i ns t ruct i on w as acc ur at e and thatanyerr ori n i tw as over come byt he cha r ge as a w hol e. I n t hi s r egar d, the C o m m o n w e a lth a rg u e s th a t th e in stru c tio n , w h e n re a d in its ent i r ety , m ade i tcl earthatthe j uryneede d t o fi nd thatG ol dbl um p o ss e ss e d th e in ten t to m u rd e r W ilh e lm in o rd e r to f in d h im l i abl e as an ac compl i ce. L ay i ng as i de the fa ctthatG ol dbl um does notcont end that h is tria l atto rn e yo b

jec ted to th is a sp e c t o f

th e c h a rg e a t th e trial, and the i nfer ence t hatw e ca n dr aw fr om the abs ence of an o b j e c t i o n t h a th e s a w n o p r e j u d i c e f r o m th e c h a r g e , we i ndepende nt l yagr ee w i t h t he C om m onw eal t h. I ti s w el l

- s ett l ed t hatunderPenns y l vani a l aw a def endantcannotbe convi ct ed of f irst-d e g re e m u rd e r a s a n a c c o m p lice “ u n les s th e C o m m o n w e a lth pr oves t hathe harbor ed the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. ” Sm i t h v. H o rn , 1 2 0 F .3 d 4 0 0 , 4 1 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “T h e C o m m o n w e a lth need notpr ove thatt he def endantactual l yper form ed the ki l l i ng, buti tm us tpr ove he i nt ended f orthe ki l l i ng t o occur . ” I d. (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). “In c o n side ri n g w h ethe r th e jury instruction in this ca se a d eq u atelyco n v ey [s] this crit ical fe ature of Penns y l vani a homi ci de l aw , w e foc us i ni t i al l yon t he l anguage t hati s cl ai m ed t o be err oneous , butw e mustr evi ew thi s por t i on of the i ns t ruct i ons i n t he cont extof the cha r ge as a w hol e. ” B r ons ht ei n v. H or n, 404 F. 3d 700, 710 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks , ci t at i on, and footnot e omi t t ed) , cert
. deni ed, 12 6 S
. C t
. 13 20 (2006 ). “T he p roper i nq uiryi s w hetherthere i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatthe j uryhas appl i ed the cha l l enged i nst ruct i on s i n a w ayt hat vi olat es the C on st i tuti on . ” Id. T hu s, her e w e mustdet erm i ne w hen r evi ew i ng the cha l l enged port i on of the i ns t ruct i ons i n t he cont extof the cha r ge as a w hol e, w hethert her e i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatthe j uryconvi ct ed G ol dbl um of fi r s t
- degr ee mur derw i t houtfi ndi ng bey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t h e in te n d e d th e k illin g o f W ilh e lm

. G ol dbl um di r ect s us t o t w o cas es : Sm i t h, 120 F. 3d 400, and Lai r d v. H or n, 414 F. 3d 419 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , cert
. deni ed, 126 S
. C t
. 1 1 4 3 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , b o t h a r i s i n g f r o m s t a t e c o u r tc o n v i c t i o n s . We d e c id e d in b o th c a se s th a t th e ju ryc h a rg e o n a c c o m p lice liab ili ty l acke d t he cr i t i cal i ns t ruct i on thatthe j urym us tfi nd thatthe59 d ef en d an t had the s p ec ifi c inten t t o k il l. T h o se c ase s, h o w ev er, are cl earl ydis t i ng uis hab l e from the o ne b efore us. I n Sm i t h, Sm i t h and anotheri ndi vi dual , A l s t on, ent er ed a pharm acyw i t h t he i nt ent i on of r obbi ng i t , and i n t he cour s e of t he r obbery , a fa t al guns hotw ound w as i nfl i ct ed t o t he hea d of a per s on named Sharp. Sm i t h, 120 F. 3d at404. Sm i t h w as tr i ed on t he homi ci de cha r ge. I d. T he j uryi ns t ruct i ons on hom i ci de i ncl uded the fol l ow i ng l anguage : [I]f . .

. y o u fin d that S m ith an d A lst o n w ere acc om pl i ces of ea ch other , then i ti s noti m por t ant fory ou t o det erm i ne w hi ch one a ctual l ypul l ed the tr igg er tha t bro u g h t abo u t th e k il li n g o f R icha rd Sharp, i f y ou fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat one of the tw o di d s o and w er e [s i c] act i ng as the ac co m p li ce o f e ac h o ther a t th e ti m e. In o rde r, how ever , t o fi nd C l i ffor d Sm i t h t o be gui l t y , y ou n ee d n o t con clud e, as I said , that h e w as th e a ctor; t hat i s, i f I can use t he w ord ‘s ho oter , ’ buthe w as, nevert hel es s , act i ng as an ac compl i ce of A l s t on and i tw as hi s i nt entof pr om ot i ng orfac i l i t at i ng t hatactand the ki l l i ng w as done i n fur t her ance of t he r obber i es , i f y ou s o fi nd, then he w oul d be g u ilty a s th o u g h h e w e re th e a c tu a l p e rp e tr a to r . . . . I d. at405 ( emphasi s added)

. T he courtcont i nued: I f, and I emphasi ze thi s , y ou fi nd thatone w as the a c c o mp l i c e o f

t h e o t h e ra n d th a to n e o f th e two actual l yper form ed the ki l l i ng, y ou, the j ur or s , need notagr ee on the r ol e orr ol es pl ay ed bythe re sp e c tiv e p a rties ; th a t is, b yth is d e f e n d a n t an d h is acc om pl i ce, i f y ou fi nd thatthatw as the pos i t i on of both, pr ovi ded thateac h of y ou i s s at i s fi ed that t he cr i m e w as actual l yperpetr at ed bythe d e f e n d a n t o r b yth e a c c o m p lice o f th e d e f e n d a n t. I d. ( emphasi s added)

. T he courtthen i ns t ruct ed the j uryon first -de g ree m u rde r:60 [T]he el ement s of fi r s tdegr ee mur derar e the unl aw ful ki l l i ng of antherper s on done i ntent i on al l y. . . plus m al i ce . . . . If these el ement s have be en es t abl i s hed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , y ou m ay , on t he theorythatone w as t he perpetr at orand the otherthe ac compl i ce, fi nd C l i ffo rd Sm i t h g uil t yof m urder i n the fi rs t d e g re e . . . . I d. R el y i ng on t hes e i ns t ruct i ons , the j uryconvi ct ed Sm i t h of the fi r s t
- degr ee mur derchar ge. I d. at406. T he ca s e ca m e bef

or e us on an appe al aft erthe di s t r i ct courtdeni ed a pe t i t i on forhabea s corpus . Sm i t h ar gued that“the j ur yw as i ncorr ect l yi ns t ruct ed thati f i tfound bey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t o n e o f th e m e n h a d th e sp e c if ic in ten t to ki l l , and thatSm i t h i nt ended t o comm i tthe r obberythatr es ul t ed in th e k ill in g , this w o u ld b e su f f icie n t to c o n v ict S m ith o f firstdegr ee mur der

. ” I d. at409. W e agr eed w i t h Sm i t h, fi ndi ng that
“ [ a ] f a ir re a d in g o f

th e ju ryin stru c tio n s . . . p e rm itt e d th e ju ryto convi ctSm i t h of m ur deri n t he fi r s tdegr ee w i t houtfi r s tfi ndi ng bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatSm i t h i nt ended thatSharp be ki l l ed. ” I d. at411. Speci fi cal l y , w e w er e conc erned w i t h t he f a c t th a t th e c h a rg e re p e a ted lyu se d th e w o rd “ a c c o m p lice ” in i s ol at i on, w i t houti ndi cat i ng w hetherthe tr i al cour tw as us i ng the w or d i n r efe r ence t o t he r obbery , the ki l l i ng, orboth. I d. at411- 12. “The char ge thus bl urr ed the di s t i nct i on betw een ‘a c c o m p lic e in th e ro b b e ry’ a n d ‘a c c o m p lic e in th e k illin g ,’ lea d in g th e ju ryto b e liev e th a t an a c c o m p lice f o r o n e p u rp o se is an ac compl i ce f

oral l purpos es . . . [and] al l ow ed Sm i t h t o be convi ct ed of f

i r s t
- degr ee mur deri f the j uryfound thatei t herhe orhi s acc om pl i ce i n t he r obberyi nt ended t o ki l l Sharp. ” I d. at 4 1 2
. L ikew ise, in L aird, L aird a n d a c o -de fe n d an t m et a third m a n a t a b a r, f

o llo w in g w h ich th e th re e m e n lef t to g e th e r sh o rtly aft ert he barcl os ed. L ai r d, 414 F. 3d at421. T he thi r d m an w as found dea d t he fol l ow i ng eveni ng. I d. L ai r d and the codefe ndantj oi nt l yw er e tr i ed forthe murde r , as w el l as r el at ed char ges i ncl udi ng ki dnapi ng, aggr avat ed as s aul t , unl aw ful61 r es t r ai nt , fal s e i m pr i s onm ent , cons pi r acy , and pos s es s i on of an in stru m e n t o f

c rim e . Id . at 4 2 2 . W h ile b o th a d m itt e d to th e ir p a rticip a tio n in th e k id n a p in g a n d b e in g p re se n t w h e n th e v ictim w as ki l l ed, t heypoi nt ed thei rfi nger s ateac h othercl ai m i ng that th e o th e r d e f

e n d a n t in f

lic te d th e f

a ta l w o u n d s . Id . a t 4 2 2 , 4 2 6
. A tt r i al , t he courtgave a n i ns t ruct i on on acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t yw hi ch i ncl uded the cha r ge thata def endant i s an ac compl i ce . . . i f w i t h t he i nt entof pr om ot i on orfac i l i t at i ng comm i s s i on of a c r i m e he s ol i ci t s , or comm ands orencour ages orr eques t s the other per s on t o comm i ti tori f he a i ds , agr ees t o ai d, or att empt s t o ai d t he otherper s on i n pl anni ng the cr i m e orcomm i t t i ng the cr i m e . . . . Y ou m ayfi nd t he def endantgui l t yof a pa r t i cul arcr i m e on the t heoryt hathe w as an ac compl i ce s o l ong as y ou ar e s at i s fi ed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe cr i m e w as comm i t t ed and the def endantw as an a c c o m p lice o f

th e p e rso n w h o c o m m itt e d it. I d. at426. T he courtt hen gave the fol l ow i ng i ns t ruct i on on first -de g ree m u rde r: Y ou m ayfi nd a def

endantgui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee m ur deri f y ou ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe fol l ow i ng four e lem e n ts h a v e b e e n p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt : Fi r s t , t hatA nthonyM i l ano i s dead. Second, t hata def

endantoran ac compl i ce of the def endant k ill e d h im . T h ird , tha t th e k ill in g w a s w ith s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. A nd, four t h, thatthe ki l l i ng w as w i t h m al i ce a s I have de fi ned thatt erm for y o u . A k ill in g is w ith sp e c if ic in ten t to k ill if

it i s w ill f u l, de lib e ra te, a n d p re m e d itate d ; th a t is, if it is comm i t t ed bya per s on w ho has a ful l yi nform ed in ten t to k ill a n d is c o n sc io u s o f h is o w n in ten t. I d.62 B e c a u se b o th L a ird a n d th e c o -d e f e n d a n t ad m itt e d to p a rticip a tin g in th e k id n a p in g b u t d e n ied h a v in g th e in ten t to k ill th e v ictim o r h e lp in g th e o th e r k ill h im , L a ird a rg u e d in h is habea s corpus pet i t i on t hatthe i ns t ruct i on on acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t y , w hi ch cons i s t ent l yr efe r r ed onl yt o “an a ccompl i ce” of “a c r i m e, ” al l ow ed the j uryt o convi cthi m of fi r s t
- degr ee mur der even though he di d notpos s es s an i nt entt o ki l l

. I d. W e found t he ca s e i ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om Sm i t h, concl udi ng that“[g] i ven th e c o u rt’s in stru c tio n o n a c c o m p lice liab ili ty , the ju ryc o u ld e a silyh a v e c o n v icte d L a ird o f f irst d e g re e m u rd e r b a se d o n h is cons pi r i ng w i t h [the co- defe ndant ] t o ki dnap oras s aul t[the v ictim ] e v e n if

ju ro rs w e re n o t co n v in c e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t L a ir d in te n d e d to k ill h im .” Id . a t 4 2 7
. T he fa ct s befor e us and the i ns t ruct i on on acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t yar e cl ear l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om both t hos e i n Sm i t h and L ai r d. I n t hos e ca s es , w e found the i ns t ruct i ons on acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t ycons t i tut i onal l yi nadequa t e bec aus e theyal l ow ed the j ur yt o concl ude that , as w e puti ti n Sm i t h, 120 F. 3d at412, “an acc om pl i ce f

orone purpos e i s an ac compl i ce f oral l purpos es . ” S uch an inference i n those cases w as quit e m i sl eading b ecause t he def endant s ei t heradmi t t ed orthe evi dence w as s t r ong t hat t heypart i ci pat ed i n a r el at ed cr i m e thati m m edi at el ypr ece ded t he ki l l i ngs , i

. e. , Sm i t h i n t he r obberyand Lai r d i n t he ki dnapi ng and as s aul t
. T hus , w e w er e conc erned thatthe fa i l ur e of the courtt o r efe rs peci fi cal l yt o t he ki l l i ng w hen di s cus s i ng acc om pl i ce l i abi l i t yal l ow ed the j uryt o concl ude thata fi ndi ng of ac compl i ce l i abi l i t yon the r el at ed cr i m e compel l ed a f i ndi ng o f a c c o m p lice liab ili tyo n th e k ill in g . S u c h a c o n c lu sio n w o u ld nothave be en corr ectfora convi ct i on forfi r s t
- degr ee mur deras a n a c c o m p lice re q u ire s th e C o m m o n w e a lth to p ro v e th a t a defe ndant“harbor ed the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. ” Sm i t h, 120 F. 3d a t 4 1 0
. T hi s appea l does notpr es enta s i m i l arpr obl em. I ti s cl ear h e re th a t th e trial c o u rt’s in stru c tio n o n a c c o m p lice liab ili ty re f e rs o n ly to th e k illin g o f W ilh e lm a n d n o t to a re la te d c ri m e . T hi s concl us i on i s i nes capa bl e fortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , the Co mmo n we a l t h d i d n o ta l l e g e th a tGo l d b l u m c o mmi t t e d a c r i me i m m edi at el ybefor e the ki l l i ng, s uch as r obberyorki dnapi ng,63 a lth o u g h it d id c h a rg e th a t h e c o m m itte d c ri m e s m u c h e a rl ie r. T hus , t he j ur ycoul d nothave dr aw n a r eas onabl e i nfer ence a l l o wi n g i tt o t a g Go l d b l u m a s a n a c c o mp l i c e i n a r e l a t e d c r i me and then i m pr oper l yext ended thatfi ndi ng t o W i l hel m ’ s ki l l i ng. Second, contr aryt o t he i ns t ruct i ons i n Sm i t h and Lai r d, t he i ns t ruct i on her e on ac compl i ce l i abi l i t ys peci fi cal l ys t at ed t hatG ol dbl um w as char ged as an ac compl i ce t o t he murde rand di d notus e the w or d “ac compl i ce” i n i s ol at i on. Fori ns t ance , aft ert he s t at e courtgave the gene r al i ns t ruct i on on acc om pl i ce liab ili tyit state d , “N o w , the C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia cont ends t hatt he def

endant , C har l es G ol dbl um , ei t herki l l ed G eor ge W i l hel m hi m s el f orw as an ac compl i ce w i t h C l ar ence M i l l eri n t hatki l l i ng. ” Li kew i s e, as w e al r eadyhave i ndi cat ed, t he j udge l at eri ns t ruct ed the j uryon appl i cat i on of ac compl i ce l i abil i t yt o the speci fi c facts of the case, as fol l ow s:

I n addi t i on, i f y ou fi nd thatevi dence es t abl i s hed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatC har l es G ol dbl um w as an ac compl i ce w i t h C l ar ence M i l l er i n t he i nt ent i onal ki l l i ng of G eor ge W i l hel m , y ou m ayfi nd t he def

endantgui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee m ur der

. I n t hatevent , y ou have t o concl ude that bot h G ol dbl um and M i l l eri nt ended t o ki l l G eor ge W i l hel m w hen theyt ook hi m up t her e [t o ( t he parki ng gar age] ) and thatG ol dbl um w as an ac co m p li ce w ith M il ler i n the k il li n g o f M r. W i l hel m . So, i n thatevent , i f y ou fi nd thatthe d e f e n d a n ti n t e n t i o n a l l yk i l l e d Ge o r g e W i l h e l m, y o u m ayfin d h im g u il tyo f f ir st de g ree m u rde r. If y ou fi nd t hathe w as an ac compl i ce i n s uch a k i l l i n g , a s I h a v e d e f

i n e d th a t , y o u ma ya l s o . On t he otherhand, i f y ou fi nd thatthe evi dence has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat G eor ge W i l hel m on t he ni ghti n ques t i on, orfai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatC har l es G ol dbl um w as an acc om pl i ce w i t h C l ar ence M i l l eri n t he i nt ent i onal ki l l i ng of G eor ge W i l hel m , y ou m us tfi nd the d e f e n d a n t n o t g u ilty o f

f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .)64 I ti s di ffi cul tt o under s t and how the courtcoul d have made the c h a rg e c lea re r o n th e re q u ire d in ten t ele m e n t o f th e c a se a n d , in t he ci r cumst ance s , w e have no doubtthata r eas onabl e j ur or w oul d under s t and thathe mustfi nd thatG ol dbl um i nt ended f or t he ki l l i ng t o occur , as oppos ed mer el yt o fi ndi ng thatG ol dbl um had an i nt entt o comm i ts om e r el at ed cr i m e, i n or dert o fi nd G o ldb lum li ab le as a n ac co m p li ce to the m u rde r. In the en d, w e fi nd i n co nsi deri ng the ch arge as w ho l e as, of cour s e, w e s houl d do, ther e i s no r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hat t he j ur yconvi ct ed G ol dbl um of fi r s t
- degr ee mur derw i t hout f in d in g b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t h e in ten d e d th a t W ilh e lm be ki l l ed. W hi l e the r obberyexampl e i n t he cha r ge w as i ncorr ect , w e conc l ude thatthe r emai nderof the cha r ge w as ent i r el yacc ur at e and s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai ned t o t he j urythati thad to f in d th a t G o ld b lu m in ten d e d th e k ill in g to f in d h im liab le u n d e r th e th e o ryo f

a c c o m p lice liab ili ty . T h e ro b b e rye x a m p le cou l d n ot m i sl ead the j urybecau se, as explai ned abo ve, the case had nothi ng t o do w i t h a r obberyoranyot herr el at ed cr i m e that im m e d ia te ly p ro c e e d e d th e k illin g . W e re c o g n ize th a t if th e f a c ts in th is c a se w e re a k in to t hos e i n Sm i t h and Lai r d, w e mi ghthave r eac hed a di ffe r ent r es ul tbas ed on thi s i ns truct i on. B utw e ar e obl i gat ed t o deci de t he ca s e bas ed on the fa ct s befor e us . W e emphas i ze thatthe t r i al courtr epea t edl yt ol d t he j urythati tneede d t o fi nd that G ol dbl um i nt ended t o ki l l W i l hel m i f i tw as t o fi nd hi m l i abl e as an ac compl i ce. Fort hes e r eas ons , w e do notconcl ude that G o ldb lum ’s arg u m en t–tha t th e ins tru cti o n s p u t th e “ ca rtb ef o re t he hor s e”–i s convi nci ng. I n r evi ew i ng the cha r ge as a w hol e, w e c o n clud e tha t th ere is no t a reaso n ab le l ikeliho o d that the ju ry convi ct ed G ol dbl um as an ac compl i ce w i t houtfi r s tfi ndi ng that h e h a d a s p e c if

ic in te n t to k ill. L a stly , G o ld b lu m tak e s is su e w ith th e “ sh a re d in ten t” l anguage w hi ch he c ont ends m i s l ed the j uryi nt o bel i evi ng that h e n e e d n o t h a v e h is o w n sp e c if ic in ten t to k ill . G o ld b lu m a ss e rts t hat“s har ed i nt ent ” s ugges t s thati nt entof one a ct orm aybe att r i but ed t o another

. Such an i nt erpr et at i on contr adi ct s the rea so n ab le un d erstan d ing o f th at ph rase , as w ell as th e c o u rt ’s65 sp ec ifi c ins tru cti o n s inf o rm ing the ju ryo therw ise. T h e c o u rt coul d nothave made i tanym or e obvi ous that“a s har ed cr i m i nal i ntentw i t h the ot her person” m eans t hat “bot h p ers on s m ust i nt end thatt he cr i m i nal actoccur ” and that“both m en, t o be f o u n d g u ilty , ev e n th o u g h o n lyo n e c o m m itt e d th e a c t, bo th i nt ended thatt he s peci fi c cr i m e, w hi ch w as compl et ed, w as i nt ended. ” A ddi t i onal l y , w e on s ever al occa s i ons have he l d t hat a pr oper l yform ul at ed “s har ed i nt ent ” cha r ge ac cur at el ys t r es s es t he nee d t o fi nd a s peci fi c i nt entforthe purpos es of ac compl i ce l i abi l i t y , s ee Brons ht ei n, 404 F. 3d at711- 12; E ver et tv. B ear d, 290 F. 3d 500, 513 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , as has the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a, s ee, e. g. , C om m onw eal t h v. C ox, 863 A
. 2d 536, 550- 51 ( Pa. 2004) ; C om m onw eal t h v. R i fe, 312 A
. 2d 406, 408- 09 ( Pa. 1973) ; C om m onw eal t h v. W i l s on, 296 A
. 2d 719, 721 (P a . 1 9 7 2 ). I n s um , bas ed on thi s r ecor d, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d nothave vot ed t o convi ctG ol dbl um of fi r s t
- degr ee mur deri n l i ghtof the new evi dence , even i f the in stru c tio n s o n a c c o m p lice liab ili tyh a d b e e n c o m p lete ly ac cu rate. P lai n lyp u t, there is j u st t o o m u ch ev iden ce h ere es t abl i s hi ng G ol dbl um ’ s gui l tand, over al l , the cha r ge w as not m i s l eadi ng. I n part i cul ar , ther e i s convi nci ng evi dence that G ol dbl um and M i l l eror ches t r at ed a pl an t o l ur e W i l hel m t o t he p a rk in g g a ra g e . G o ld b lu m a d m itte d to b e in g a t th e c ri m e s c e n e . H e had a m ot i ve t o ki l l W i l hel m i nas m uch as W i l hel m knew of G ol dbl um ’ s i nvol vementi n t he l and fr aud s cheme and the ar s on, a n d d e m a n d e d p a ym e n t o f h is d e b t. M o re o v e r, af ter th e a ss a u lt G o ld b lu m a n d M ill e r a g re e d to lie to th e p o lice in o rd e r to p ro v id e e a c h w ith a n a lib i. T h e yth e n le f t th e s c e n e to g e th e r. A ft erbei ng t aken i nt o cus t ody , G ol dbl um s oughtt o hi r e an assa ssin to k il l M il ler, the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ch ief w itn ess. In l i ghtof thi s evi dence , w e s i m pl ycannotconcl ude thatthe new evi dence w oul d have l ed anyj ur ornott o vot e t o convi ct G o ld b lu m . F o r th is re a so n , G o ld b lu m h a s n o t es tab lish e d h is
“ a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ” a n d th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyd e n ied h is second app l i cat i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus.66 V. CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the di s t r i ct co u rt ’s ord er o f D ec em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , d en y ing the p eti ti o n fo r a w ri tof h abeas co rpus.

Pol l ak, J
. , di s s ent i ng:

I bel i eve Char l es G ol dbl um i s ent i t l ed t o a fe der al evi dent i aryhear i ng t o devel op the r ecor d on the al l egat i ons befor e us . A br i ef r eca pi tul at i on of the ca s e’ s r el evant p ro c e d u ra l h isto rym a yh e lp c lar if yw h yth is c o n c e rn p re v e n ts m e f ro m jo in in g th e c o u rt ’s o p in io n . I n 1976, G ol dbl um , s i t t i ng i n t he bac k s eatof a pa r ked ca r, all eg ed lystab b ed G eo rge W il h elm , sitti n g in the d ri v er’s s e a t, w h ile C la re n c e M ille r l o o k e d o n f ro m th e p a s s e n g e r s e a t. G o ldb lum w as c o n v ict ed o f f ir st- d eg ree m u rde r an d v o lun tary m ans l aught eri n 1977, pur s uantt o a j urytr i al i n t he C ourtof C om m on Pl eas of A l l eghenyC ount y , Penns y l vani a; he w as sent enced t o li fe i n p ri son fo r the m urder and 1 5-30 y ears ’ im p ri so n m en t fo r oth er o ff en ses. M il ler w as, as this co u rt c h a ra c te ri z e s h im , “ th e p ro s e c u tio n ’s c e n tr a l w itn e s s ” a t th e tr ia l. In 1 9 8 9 , af

ter G o ld b lu m h a d e x h a u ste d h is a p p e a ls a n d sta te pos t
- convi ct i on r emedi es , the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfortheT he pet i t i on r ai s ed t w o cl ai m s : ( 1) w hether G ol dbl um w as 20 deni ed due pr oces s by the t r i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o r equi r e a pr e- t r i al ps y chi atr i c exa m i nat i on of M i l l eror t o gr ant a new t r i al bas ed on evi dence att acki ng M i l l er ’ s cr edi bi l i t y , and ( 2) w hethert he tr i al court vi ol at ed G ol dbl um ’ s r i ght t o confr ontw i t nes s es byadmi t t i ng c e rt a in o u t- o f

-c o u rt d e c la ra tio n s b yth e d y in g v ic tim

. T he cl ai m s u n d er l y i ng the s econd pe t i t i on i ncl ude 21 i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el forf a i l u r e t o i nves t i gat e orpr es ent excu l patory “blood spat t er” evidence, and viol at i on of due p rocess th ro u g h a f

a u lty ju ry in s tru c tio n o n a c c o m p lic e lia b ility.

67 W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a deni ed hi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on. 20 G ol dbl um appl i ed i n 1996 forr el i ef i n s t at e courtunder Penns y l vani a’ s Post

- C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”)

. T he Al l e g h e n yCo u n t yCo u r to f Co mmo n P l e a s ( a s th e “ P CRA c o u rt ” ) d e n ie d th e p e titio n w ith o u t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . H ow ever , t he Super i orC our tr emanded the ca s e fora hea r i ng on one of G ol dbl um ’ s cl ai m s : w hetherG ol dbl um ’ s tr i al couns el w as in ef fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to inv esti g ate “ b loo d sp att er” e v id e n c e o r p re se n t tes tim o n yf ro m D r. C yril W e c h t, a f o re n sic ex p ert w h o , p ri m aril yo n the b asis o f th e “ b loo d sp att er” e v id e n c e , w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d th a t G o ld b lu m d id n o t k ill W il h elm

. O n rem an d , the P C R A co u rttoo k test im o n yfro m D r. W echtand the s t at e’ s r ebut t al expert , T obyW ol s on. D eci di ng that the re m an d w as “ str ict lyco n fin ed to the issue o f D r. W echt ’ s t es t i m ony , ” the PC R A cour tdecl i ned t o hearthe pr offe r ed t es t i m onyof otherfor ens i c expe r t s w ho s ubm i t t ed a f f id a v its o n G o ld b lu m ’s b e h a lf

. C om m onw eal th v. G oldbl um , N o. CC 76 02 12 67 , s l i p. op . a t6 ( A l l e gh e nyCountyCt
. C. P. A u g . 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 ). T h e P C R A co u rtag ain d ism issed G o ldb lum ’s c la im s . In 2 0 0 2 , th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt a f f ir m e d

. I n 2004, upon r ece i vi ng perm i s s i on fr om thi s cour tt o do s o, G ol dbl um fi l ed a s econd f eder al habea s pet i t i on i n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a al l egi ng cl ai m s di ffe r entfr om t hos e i n t he fi r s tpet i t i on. I n 2005, the M agi s t r at e J udge 21 r ecomm ended thatt hi s pet i t i on be di s m i s s ed bec aus e, i n t heA s the c o u rt exp l ai ns, becau se G oldbl um fi l ed h i s fi rs t 22 pet i t i on i n 1991, pr i ort o A E D PA , w e mustappl yt he “abus e- oft he- w r i t ” s t andar d. T o det erm i ne w hethert he “s ubs t ant i ve gat ekeep i ng pr ovi s i ons ” of § 2244( b) ( 2) w oul d have a “genui ne r etr oact i ve eff

ect , ” w e m us t det erm i ne w hether t he pet i t i oner“ca n s how t hathe w oul d have be en ent i t l ed t o pur s ue hi s s econd pe t i t i on underpr e- A E D PA l aw . ” In re Min a rik , 166 F. 3d 5 9 1 , 602 ( 3d C i r . 1999)

. I f s o, then the gatek eepi ng pr ovi s i ons of § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 ) are inapp li ca b le, an d the “ ab u se-o f-the -w ri t” st an d ard go v ern s t he s how i ng a pet i t i onerm us tm ake t o es t abl i s h fede r al ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r a s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n . S e e id

. U ndert hi s s t andar d, G ol d b lum m ayover come t he j ur i s di ct i onal cons t r ai nt s agai ns ta s econd pe t i t i on w i t h a s how i ng of “a ctual i nnocenc e, ” a c onceptdel i neat ed i n Sc h lu p v . D e lo , 513 U .S . 2 9 8 (1 9 9 8 ). T h e “ a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ” sh o w in g u n d e r th is sta n d a rd e sta b lish e s th a t th e p e tit io n e r’s a p p li c a tio n f a lls w ith in “the narr ow cl as s of cas es . . . i m pl i cat ing a fundam ent al m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” McC l es key v. Zant , 499 U
. S. 467, 494 (1991 ) ( al t erat i o ns om i t t ed). T his show i ng i s som ew hat l ess demandi ng t han the “a ctual i nnocenc e” s how i ng a pet i t i onerw ho has been s ent ence d t o death m us tm ake t o es t abl i s h t hat , abs entany ot hercons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, hi s exec ut i on w oul d vi ol at e the E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. See Sc hl up , 513 U
. S. at313- 17 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng Her r er a v. C ol l i ns , 5 0 6 U .S . 3 9 0 (1 9 9 3 ))

. 68 M agi s t r at e J udge’ s vi ew , the pet i t i on di d notover come t he j ur i s di ct i onal cons t r ai nt s on s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i ons , as s etfor t h i n 28 U
. S. C
. § 2244 and underthe “a bus eof- t he- w r i t ” s t andar d, w hi ch r equi r e a s how i ng of “a ctual in n o c e n c e ” o r “ c a u s e a n d p re ju d ic e .” S e e In re Min a rik , 166

22 F .3 d 5 9 1 , 6 0 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). E n r out e t o r ecomm endi ng di s m i s s al of the habe as pet i t i on, t he M agi s t r at e J udge deni ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng on w h e th e r G o ld b lu m c o u ld o v e rc o m e th e ju ri s d ic tio n a l c o n s tr a in ts
. A ddr es s i ng t hi s i s s ue, the M agi s t r at e J udge s t at ed thatthe “thr es hol d ques t i on” bef or e the courti s “w hetherthe habe as pet i t i oner‘ has fai l ed t o devel op the fa ctual bas i s of hi s [s i c] claim in S tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing s. ’” M ag istrate Ju d g e’s R ep o rtSee B enchof f v. C o ller an , 4 0 4 F
. 3 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 (3d C ir

. 23 2005) ( hol di ng t hat“w hether[a pe t i t i oner ’ s ] habe as p et i t i on w as ‘ s econd ors ucce s s i ve’ w i t hi n the meani ng of 28 U
. S. C
. § 2244( b)

. . . i m pl i cat es bot h ourappel l at e j ur i s di ct ion and t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n ” ). I am per s uaded thata hea ri n g is r equi r ed t o det erm i ne 24 w h e th e r G o ld b lu m c a n e sta b lis h “ a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ” su f f icie n t to p e rm it th e f

ilin g o f h is se c o n d p e tit io n . I th e re f o re f in d it 69 a n d Re c o mme n d a t i o n ( “ R & R” ) a t4 7 n . 2 1 ( q u o t i n g 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2254( e) ( 2) )

. I n expl ai ni ng the deni al of an e vi dent i aryhear i ng, t he M agi s t r at e J udge rul ed that : ( 1) the s t at e courtr ecor d w as compl et e w i t h r es pectt o w hetherG ol dbl um ’ s pet i t i on s at i s fi ed t he “a bus e- of- t he- w r i t ” s t andar d; and ( 2) w hetherornot G ol dbl um ’ s pet i t i on w as ful l ydevel oped i n s t at e court , the d e c isio n to h o ld a h e a rin g lay w ith in h e r d isc re tio n a n d , in th is c a se , the re w a s n o n e e d f o r o n e . T h e D istric t C o u rt su m m a rily adopt ed the M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on and d is m is s e d G o ld b lu m ’s h a b e a s p e titio n . B ef o re u s n o w is th e q u esti o n w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt had, and s houl d have e xer ci s ed, author i t yt o adj udi cat e the cl ai m s under l y i ng G ol dbl um ’ s s econd ha beas pet i t i on, n o t wi t h s t a n d i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s o f 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 4 4 a n d th e “ a b u s e -o f -t h e -w ri t” d o c tr in e . S e e Min a rik , 166 F. 3d at602. Speci fi cal l y , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherG ol dbl um has m ade a s how i ng of “c aus e and pr ej udi ce” or“ac tual in n o c e n c e ” u n d e r th e p re -A E D P A sta n d a rd , as re q u ire d to es t abl i s h fede r al j ur i s di ct i on overa s econd ha beas pet i t i on ra isin g c laim s d if

f e re n t f ro m a n e a rlier p e tit io n f iled p rio r to A E D P A
. S e e id

. I sh a re th e c o u rt’s v iew th a t th e q u e stio n is j ur i s di ct i onal i n natur e. 23 I cannot , how ever , j oi n t he courtbeca us e, i n m yvi ew , an adequa t e ans w ert o t hi s ques t i on cannotbe der i ved fr om the rec o rd b ef

o re this co u rt
. G o ldb lum is en ti tl ed to an ev iden ti ary hear i ng t o det erm i ne w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our thas j ur i s di ct i on on t he gr ound t hata funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce i s at s t ake. T hi s hear i ng w oul d i ncl ude evi dence thatthe

24unnece s s aryt o cons i derw hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed a h e a ri n g o n G o ld b lu m ’s “ c a u s e a n d p re ju d ic e ” a lle g a tio n . T h o u g h I f

in d it in a p p ro p ria te to f u rth e r e v a lu a te 25 G ol dbl um ’ s al l egat i ons w i t hout t he benef i t of an ade quat e r ecor d, one as pectof the court ’ s anal y s i s r equi r es comm ent
. I n hol di ng th a t G o ld b lu m f

a iled to e sta b lish h is c laim s, th e c o u rt a p p e a ls to H ou se v. B ell , 1 2 6 S
. C t. 2 0 6 4 (20 0 6 ), w h ere a p eti ti o n er’s pr ocedur al defa ul tw as excus ed by t he l i kel i hood of hi s i nnocenc e, and A l brecht v . H

orn , 485 F. 3d 103 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , w her e i tw as n o t. In e ac h o f th ese ca ses, the d istri ct co u rtco n d u cted ev iden ti ary h e a rin g s o n th e p e tit io n e r’s in n o c e n c e c laim

. T h e a p p e llate c o u rts i n H ous e and A l br echt

revi ew ed in d e tai l the d i stri ctcou rt s’ d e ter m in a tio n s. T h is th o ro u g h re v iew w o u ld h a v e b e e n im p o ss ib le w i t houtdr aw i ng upon t he r i ch evi dent i ary r ecor ds t hatt he fe der al di s t r i ctcour t s devel oped af t erful l and fa i rhear i ngs on an i s s ue of fede r al j ur i s di ct i on. I n m yvi ew , t he r ecor ds i n H ou se and A l br echt provide a m arked co ntr astt o the r ecord b efore us. 70 C om m onw eal t h’ s keyw i t nes s confe s s ed t o par t i ci pat i on i n t he m u rd e r a n d tes tim o n yf ro m h ig h lyc re d e n tiale d f o re n sic e x p e rts w h o b e lie v e G o ld b lu m is in n o c e n t. I r es pect ful l ydi s s entbeca us e, w i t houtthi s hear i ng, any c o n c lu sio n a s to o u r su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n lac k s a n a d e q u a te bas i s . Fi r s t , w i t h r es pectt o w hetherA E D PA for ecl os es an e v id e n tiary he a rin g f

o r G o ld b lu m , I w ill p o in t to c e rta in
“ p rin c ip les ” a n n o u n c e d b yth e c o u rt w h ich , in m yju d g m e n t, r equi r e s i gni fi cantm odi fi cat i on. N ext , I w i l l t ake i s s ue w i t h t he co u rt ’s view that the e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g h eld b ythe P C R A co u rt obvi at ed anyneed f

ora D i s t r i ctC our tevi dent i aryhear i ng. 25

I . T he court ’ s “pri nci pl es ” M ydi s agr eementw i t h t he courtder i ves , i n s ubs t ant i al m eas ur e, fr om t he “pr i nci pl es ” the courti dent i fi es and r el i es upon t o det erm i ne w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n not71 hol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng. T he courtfr ames the s t andar ds go verni ng G oldbl um ’s con t enti on as fol l ow s: G ol dbl um . . . cont ends thathe i s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng unders ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) beca us e the sta te c o u rt d id n o t p e rm it h im to d e v e lo p th e re c o rd f u lly a s th e c o u rt p re c lu d e d th e tes tim o n yo f tw o f o re n sic expert s w ho w oul d have pr ovi ded expe r topi ni ons s i m i l ar to tho se o f D r. W ec h t. U n d er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2),

[i ] f the appl i canthas fai l ed t o devel op the fa ctua l bas is of

a c lai m in S tat e c o u rt pr ocee di ngs , the courts hal l nothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he cl ai m unl es s the ap p li ca n t sho w s tha t- - ( A ) the cl ai m r el i es on – ( i ) a new rul e of cons t i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es o n c o llate ra l re v iew b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, that w as p rev iou slyu n av ail ab le; o r (i i) a fac tual pr edi cat e thatcoul d nothave be en previ ou sl ydis cov ered throug h the exerci se of due di l i gence ; and ( B ) the fa ct s under l y i ng the cl ai m w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatbutfor c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r, n o re a so n a b le fac t fi nderw oul d have f ound t he appl i cant gui l t yof the under l y i ng offe ns e. T hus , unders ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) , i f an a ppl i canthas d e v e lo p e d th e f

a c tu a l b a sis o f

h is c laim s in th e sta te c o u rt, h e is n o t e n title d to a f

e d e ra l e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . F u rth e rm o re , ev e n if

th e f a c tu a l b a sis is n o t su f

f icie n tly dev el op ed, a peti t i on er m ustdem on strat e t hat hi s case f a lls w ith in th e v e rylim ited c irc u m sta n c e s liste d in s ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) ( A ) and ( B ) , and onl ythen i s the di s t r i ctcourtperm i t t ed underthe A E D PA , though not re q u ir e d , to g ra n t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . See Cam pbel lv.Th e c o u r t ’ s f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s , q u o t e d a b o v e , ma k es cl ear 26 t hat, byt his st at em en t, itm eans t hat § 225 4(e) (2) precl ud es a hear i ng forG ol dbl um . T he courtconcl udes fr om thi s anal y s i s that § 2254( e) ( 2) for ecl os es a hea r i ng beca us e G ol dbl um ’ s al l egat i ons w e re d e v e lo p e d in th e sta te c o u rt re c o rd : “ E v e n if w e a g re e d w ith G ol dbl um t hathe has been de nied the oppor tuni t yt o devel op t he 72 V aughn , 2 0 9 F
. 3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 6

- 8 7 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. We r ei t er at e thatt he dec i s i on t o gr antan evi dent i aryhear i ng i s “l eftt o t he s ound di s cr et i on of di s t r i ctcour t s . ” Sch ri ro , 127 S. C t
. [1933, ] 1939 [2007]
. A ddi t i onal l y , the S u p rem e C o u rth as m ad e c lear tha t “an ev iden ti ary hear i ng i s notr equi r ed on i s s ues thatcan be r es ol ved by re f e re n c e to th e sta te c o u rt re c o rd ,” a s “ [ i]f d istric t co u rts w e re re q u ire d to a llo w f e d e ra l h a b e a s a p p lica n ts to d e v e lo p e v e n th e m o st in su b sta n tial f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in e v id e n tiary he a rin g s, d istric t co u rts w o u ld b e f o rc e d to re o p e n f a c tu a l d isp u tes th a t w e re c o n c lu siv e lyre so lv e d in t he s t at e court s . ” I

d. at1940 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks an d cit ati o n o m itted). T he courtt hen not es i t s pos i t i on that“s ect i on 2254( e) m akes cl eart hati tappl i es i n al l pr ocee di ngs ‘ i ns t i tut ed byan appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus bya per s on i n cus t ody p u r s u a n tt o t h e j u d g me n to f a S t a t e c o u r t , ’ ” ( q u o t i n g 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 )), a n d g o e s o n to sta te: “ w ith th e se p rin c ip les in m i nd, w e r evi ew G ol dbl um ’ s evi dent i aryhear i ng cont ent i on. ” T her eupon the courti dent i fi es the r es pect s i n w hi ch, m eas ur ed ag ains t th e “ p ri n ciples” stat ed b ythe c o u rt , G o ldb lum ’s c o n ten tio n c o m e s u p sh o rt. A . T he fi r s tof the court ’ s “pr i nci pl es ” thatI bel i eve i s an i n a p p o s i t e s t a t e m e n to f

th e l a w i s th e c o u r t ’ s p r o n o u n c e m e n t— aft er quoti ng 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 25 4(e) (2) — as fol l ow s: “T hu s, unders ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) , i f an a ppl i canthas devel oped the fac tual bas i s of hi s cl ai m s i n t he s t at e court , he i s notent i t l ed t o a fede r al evi dent i aryhear i ng. ” Sect i on 2254( e) ( 2) does not 26fac tual r eco r d thr ough no faul tof hi s ow n, and ther ef or e s ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) di d notpr eclude an ev i dent i ar y hear i ng , s uch a f

i ndi ng d o es n o t nec essa ri lyen ti tl e h im to o n e” (em p h asis ad d ed ). 73 s peak i n t erm s t o t he s i tuat i on t o w hi ch the courtr efe r s — the situ a tio n in w h ich “ a n a p p lica n t h a s d e v e lo p e d th e f a c tu a l b a sis o f h is c laim s in th e sta te c o u rt.” S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 (e )(2 ) sp e a k s in t erm s t o t he obver s e s i tuat i on — the s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the appl i canthas , as t he s t atut e put s i t , “fa i l ed t o devel op the fa ctual bas i s of a c l ai m i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs , ” w i t h t he r es ul tthat t he appl i canti s barr ed fr om an evi dent i aryhear i ng i n t he di s t r i ct courtunl es s t he appl i cantcan s at i s fythe verydemandi ng r equi r ement s of s ubs ect i ons ( A ) and ( B )

. T her e i s no rul e — w h ethe r of

fo rm al l o g ic, o r of

sem an ti cs, or o f statuto ry co n stru cti o n —

w h ich w o u ld req u ir e tha t § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2)’s pr ecl us i on of a f

eder al evi dent i aryhear i ng forthe appl i cantw ho “h as f ail ed to d ev elop the f

ac tual b asis o f a claim in S tat e c o u rt pr ocee di ngs ” s houl d bara fe der al evi dent i aryhear i ng forthe a p p lica n t w h o h a s b e e n a b le to p re se n t th e f a c tu a l b a sis o f

h is c la im s in a s ta te c o u rt
. T o be s ur e, i n m os tof the s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch the appl i canthas been a bl e t o pr es entthe el ement s of hi s cl ai m i n a s t at e court , i ti s unl i kel ythata furt herevi dent i aryhear i ng w i l l be neede d. B utt her e ar e occ as i onal ci r cumst ance s w her e a su p p lem en taryfe d era l evid en ti aryh ea ri n g m ayb e c all ed fo r — e. g. , w her e the s t at e court ’ s hear i ng, w hi l e enc om pas s i ng the fac tual bas i s of a c l ai m , w as not“ful l and fa i r . ” Tow ns end v. Sa in , 3 7 2 U .S . 2 9 3 , 3 1 3 (1 9 6 3 ); s ee al s o R andyH ert z and J ames S . L ie b m a n , Federal H

ab eas C orpu s P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 2 0 .3 e (5 th e d . 2 0 0 5 ) ( id e n tif y in g in s ta n c e s o f

u n f a irh e a ri n g s ). A n d § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2) is no t a ba r t o su ch a h ea ri n g . “In ca ses w h ere an appl i cantforfede r al habea s r el i ef i s notbarr ed fr om obt ai ni ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng by28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( e) ( 2) , the deci s i on t o gr ants uch a he ar i ng r es t s i n t he di s cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcourt
. ” Schr i r o v. Landri gr an , 127 S. C t
. 1933, 1937 (20 0 7 ). B .74 W hatI t hi nk t o be the court ’ s s econd mi s - s t at ed “pr i nci pl e” f

ol l ow s r i ghtaft erthe fi r s t : “Fur t herm or e, even i f the f a c tu a l b a s is is n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d [ in a s ta te c o u rt ], a p eti ti o n er m u st de m o n str ate tha t his case fa ll s w ith in the v ery li m it ed circu m stan ce s li sted in se cti o n 2 2 5 4 (e)(2)(A ) an d (B ), a n d o n l yt h e n i s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp e r mi t t e d u n d e rth e AE DP A, t hough notr equi r ed, t o gr antan evi dent i aryhear i ng. ” The court ’ s form ul at i on om i t s a cruci al poi nt
. Sect i on 2254( e) ( 2) bar s a fe der al evi dent i aryhear i ng fora habe as pet i t i onerw ho has n o t m a d e a su f

f icie n t f a c tu a l d e m o n stra tio n in a sta te c o u rt o n ly w hen the i nadequa cyof the s t at e courtdemonstr at i on w as the f a u lt o f th e p e titio n e r. See W

i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 529 U
. S. 420, 4 2 9 -3 7 (2 0 0 0 ). C . T h e c o u rt, i n m yv iew , ru n s c o u n ter to c irc u it p re c e d e n t in advanc i ng a thi r d “pr i nci pl e”: “[S] ect i on 2254( e) m akes cl ear t hati tappl i es i n al l pr ocee di ngs ‘ i ns t i tut ed byan appl i cat i on for a w r i tof habe as corpus bya per s on i n cus t odypur s uantt o t he ju d g m e n t o f

a S ta te c o u rt ’” (q u o tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 ))

. T hi s courtrul ed, i n C r is t i n v. B r ennan , 281 F. 3d 404, 413 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), cer t
. deni ed , 537 U
. S. 897 ( 2002) , that“[s ] ect i on 2254( e) ( 2) w as noti nt ended t o govern al l evi dent i aryhear i ngs . ” In C ris tin , t he di s t r i ctcour thel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on w hethera habe as pet i t i oner ’ s al l egat i on of “a ctual i nnocenc e” w as s uffi ci entt o excus e a pr ocedur al defa ul t , thus al l ow i ng the courtt o r eac h t he pet i t i on’ s m er i t s . Sect i on 2254( e) ( 2) , w hi ch a p p lies w h e n a n a p p lica n t “h a s f a iled to d e v e lo p th e f

a c tu a l b a sis of a c l ai m i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs , ” w oul d, i f appl i cabl e, have for ecl os ed the hea r i ng. T he C r is t i n c o u rt, d e ter m in in g th a t it w as pr operfort he di s t r i ctcour tt o hol d a hea r i ng, concl uded that “the pl ai n m eani ng of § 2254( e) ( 2) ’ s i ntr oduct oryl anguage does n o t p re c lu d e f

e d e ra l h e a rin g s o n e x c u se s f o r p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt att he s t at e l evel

. ” I

d. ; acco rd H

ollow ay v. H

orn , 355 F. 3d 707, 716 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( appl y i ng C ris tin )

. A contr aryi nt erpr et at i on of § 2254( e) ( 2) , as the C ris tin courtr ecogni zed w i t h r es pectt o evi dent i aryhear i ngs on w hether a pr i s oner ’ s pr ocedur al defa ul tpr ecl udes a fe der al cour tfr omM or eover , as the C r is t i n co u rt also rec o g n ized , a c o n tr ary 27 i nterpret at i on of § 22 54 (e) (2) w ou l d n ot fur t her A E D P A ’s ai m s. T h e “ c lea r p u rp o se ” o f th e p ro v isio n is “ to e n c o u ra g e lit ig a n ts to pur s ue cl ai m s i n s t at e cour t pr i or t o s eeki ng fede ral c ol l at er al revi ew . ” D uncan v. W alker , 53 3 U
. S
. 16 7, 18 1 ( 20 01 ). W ith r es pectt o evi dent i ary hear i ngs t o es t abl i s h caus e and pr ej udi ce or a mi sca rri age of

j us t i ce, the C r is t i n cour tnot ed thati tw as “unaw ar e of how perm i t t i ng . . . t he oppor tuni t y t o devel op fac t s on t hi s i s s ue of f

eder al l aw w oul d i n anyw ayi m pugn our‘ r es pectfor sta te p ro c e d u ra l ru le s’ o r d im in ish th e im p o rta n c e f e d e ra l co u rts m us tpl ace on ‘ conce pt i ons of com i t yand of the i m por t ance of fi nal i t yi n s t at e cr i m i nal l i t i gat i on. ’ ” C ris tin , 28 1 F
. 3d at417 ( quot i ng C ol em an v. Thom ps on , 5 0 1 U
. S
. 7 2 2 , 7 4 7 (19 9 1 )); s ee a ls o id

. a t 4 1 5 (“ [ T ]h e q u e stio n o f w h e n a n d h o w d e f a u lts in compl i ance w i t h s t at e pr ocedur al rul es can pr ecl ude our c o n s id e ra tio n o f

a f e d e ra l q u e s tio n i s its e lf a f e d e ra l q u e s tio n .” ( quot i ng Johns on v. Mis s is s i ppi , 4 8 6 U .S . 5 7 8 , 5 8 7 (1 9 8 8 ))

. 75 a d ju d ic a tin g h is h a b e a s p e titio n , s ee 2 8 1 F .3 d a t 4 1 5 -1 7 , w o u ld se v e re lyh a n d ica p f

e d e ra l co u rts s e e k in g to d e ter m in e th e ir s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. T he Supr eme C our ti ns t ruct s that 27 al l egat i ons of “a ctual i nnocenc e” made forthe purpos e of ex cu sing p roc ed u ral de fa u lto r a su cc essiv e p eti ti o n , are “pr ocedur al , r athert han s ubs t ant i ve” be caus e the “c l ai m of i nnocenc e does notbyi t s el f pr ovi de a ba s i s forr el i ef. ” Schl up v. D e lo , 513 U
. S. 298, 315 ( 1995)

. T hati s , the cl ai m of i nnocenc e “ is a g a tew a yth ro u g h w h ich a h a b e a s p e tit io n e r m u st p a ss to have hi s ot herw i s e barr ed cons t i tut i onal cl ai m deci ded on the m er i t s . ” I

d. ( quot i ng Her r er a v. C ol l i ns , 506 U
. S. 390, 404 ( 1993) )

. St at e court s have no i ns t i tut i onal i nt er es ti n devel opi ng re c o rd s o n th is is s u e o f

f e d e ra l p ro c e d u re . C ris tin r ecogni zes t hati ti s t her efor e “unr eas onabl e” t o r equi r e a ha beas pet i t i oner t o r el ys ol el yon t he s t at e r ecor d i n att empt i ng t o pas s thr ough th is g a tew a y : [S] om et i m es a pet i t i onerw i l l devel op fac t s i n s t at e courtthatl at er pr ove r el evantt o excus i ng a pr ocedur al defa ul tdur i ng fede r al p ro c e e d in g s. T h e se o c c u rre n c e s, h o w e v e r, ar e c o in c id e n tal, f o r it i s r ar e thata s t at e courti nt ent i onal l ypr ovi des a forum i n w hi ch the76 p e tit io n e r c a n d e v e lo p f a c ts th a t m ig h t o n e d a ye x c u se h is pr ocedur al defa ul t
. I tw oul d be unr eas onabl e t o r equi r e a p eti ti o n er to relyo n su ch co incid en ce s to rec eive an ev iden ti ary h e a ri n g o n h is p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt. C ris tin , 2 8 1 F .3 d a t 4 1 6 n .1 3
. A l t hough C ris tin conce r ned an i s s ue of pr ocedur al defa ul t , i t s obs ervat i ons ar e no l es s aptw i t h r es pectt o hear i ngs on a pr i s oner ’ s s econd ha beas pet i t i on. Fol l ow i ng C ris tin , I c o n c lu d e th a t th e b a r o n e v id e n tiary he a rin g s in § 2 2 5 4 (e )(2 ) is i nappl i cabl e w her e a pe t i t i oners eeks a hea r i ng t o es t abl i s h a sh o w ing o f “ ac tual inn o ce n ce ” u n d er Schl up . I ndeed, as a d d re ss e d b e lo w , the in a d e q u a c yo f th e sta te c o u rt re c o rd in th is cas e pr eci s el yi l l us t r at es the conc erns thatani m at e C ris tin
.

II. T he D i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s abuse of di s cre t i on A s § 2254( e) ( 2) does notfor ecl os e a he ar i ng t o det erm i ne w hethert her e i s fede r al s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on over G o ldb lum ’s sec o n d p eti ti o n , I tu rn to the q u esti o n w h ethe r a hear i ng i s nece s s ary . T he courtbel i eves not , hol di ng that G o ld b lu m ’s a lleg a tio n s “ c a n b e re so lv e d b yre f e re n c e to th e sta te courtr ecor d. ” Thi s r ecor d cons i s t s of an e vi dent i aryhear i ng hel d byt he s t at e PC R A cour ton t he narr ow i s s ue “w hethertr i al co u n sel w as in ef

fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to p rese n t th e e x p ert te s tim o n yo f

D r. C yri l W e c h t” a t G o ld b lu m ’s 1 9 7 7 tr ia l. C om m onw eal th v. G oldbl um , N o . 1 7 4 W D A 2 0 0 1 , slip o p . at 1 ( Pa. Super
. C t
. O ct
. 24, 2002)

. I n m yvi ew , the evi dence adduce d att hats t at e courthear i ng i s i nadequa t e foreval uat i ng th e f e d e ra l q u e stio n b e f

o re u s, a n d , in a d o p tin g th e M a g istra te J udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on thatG ol dbl um ’ s habea s pet i t i on s houl d be di s m i s s ed w i t houtan evi dent i aryhear i ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byfai l i ng t o r equi r e a hear i ng. W hi l e the PC R A cour t ’ s evi dent i aryhear i ng w as or i ent ed t ow ar d a “na r r ow i s s ue on r emand, ” i d. at 12 , the D istri ct C o u rt77 w as obl i gat ed t o addr es s w hetherG ol dbl um ’ s s how i ng of “a ctual i nnocenc e” w as s uffi ci entt o over come t he j ur i s di ct i onal c o n stra in ts o n h is s e c o n d p e tit io n . T h is e n tails a n in -d e p th as s es s m entof w hethert he evi dence , “ol d and new , ” H ous e v. B e ll , 126 S. C t
. 2064, 2077 ( 2006) ( des cr i bi ng the Schl up s t andar d) , t hatt he pet i t i onerpr es ent s w oul d, i n t he aggr egat e, s uppor ta conc l us i on “thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed hi m i n t he l i ghtof the new evi dence

. ” Schl up , 51 3 U. S. at327. T he fa ct s under l y i ng th e “ a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ” a lleg a tio n a re c o n sid e re d “ ‘in lig h t o f a ll th e e v id e n c e , inc lu d in g th a t alle g e d to h a v e b e e n ill e g a lly admi t t ed ( butw i t h due r egar d t o anyunr el i abi l i t yof i t ) and e v id e n c e ten a b lyc laim e d to h a v e b e e n w ro n g lye x c lu d e d o r to have be come avai l abl e onl yaft erthe tr i al

. ’ ” I d. at328 ( quot i ng H e n r y J
. F r i e n d l y, I

s I nnocenc e I

r r el evant ? C ol l at er alA t tack on C rim in a l Ju d

g m e n ts , 3 8 U
. C h i. L
. R ev . 1 4 2 , 1 6 0 (19 7 0 )). In m aki ng t he det erm i nat i on, “the di s t r i ctcour ti s notbound bythe rul es of admi s s i bi l i t yt hatw oul d govern attr i al

. ” Id

. a t 3 2 7
. T h e e v id e n c e G o ld b lu m p ro f f e rs is h ig h lyre lev a n t to su ch a d eterm ination

. A s the co u rtrec o g n izes, G o ldb lum o ff ers new evi dence t o s uppor thi s “ac tual i nnocenc e” a l l egat i on, in c lu d in g : (1) [ A ] l ea d ing ex p ert i n b loo d sp att er e v iden ce , D r. W echt , w ho di d nott es t i fyatthe tr i al w i t h r es pectt o t he bl ood s patt erevi dence , has offe r ed hi s opi ni on that M i l l er , and notG ol dbl um , m ur der ed W i l hel m ; and ( 2) [ e v id e n c e th a t] M ill e r c o n f e ss e d to a m e m b e r o f

th e S tate B oar d of Par dons and the att orneygener al of P e n n sy lv a n ia th a t h e p a rticip a ted a lo n g w ith G o ld b lu m in th e a c tu a l m u rd e r. G ol dbl um al s o pr offe r s as new evi dence the s ubm i s s i ons fr om t he thr ee otherfor ens i c expe r t s w ho have opi ned thatG ol dbl um di d notcomm i tt he s t abbi ng. A ddi t i onal l y , the courti dent i fi es evi dence t hatw as al r eadyi n t he r ecor d t hatG ol dbl um cont ends i s r el evantt o hi s “ac tual i nnocenc e” a l l egat i on:T h e c o u rt’s a n a ly sis o f th e ju ry in stru c tio n is ta n g e n tial to 28 w h e th e r G o ld b lu m ’s p e tit io n m e rits a h e a rin g , b u t I t a k e iss u e w ith i t
. T he court , havi ng concl uded thati tcoul d do s o w i t houtan ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g , n ee d ed to add ress w h ethe r th e e rron eo u s jury i ns t ruct i on i ncr eas es the l i kel i hood that“i n l i g h tof al l t he evi dence , ” Schl up , 513 U
. S. at328, “i ti s m or e l i kel yt han nott hat no r eas onabl e j ur or w oul d have convi ct ed [t he def endant ]
. ” Id

. at 3 2 7 . A s th e c o u rt re c o g n ize s, th is “ a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ” q u e stio n is befor e t he court , but the pet i t i oner ’ s under l y i ng co ns t i tut i onal cl ai m s ar e not
. Y et , addr es s i ng t he s i gni fi canc e of t h e jury i ns t ruct i on, t he courtr el i es on cas es conce r ni ng w h et heran i ns t ruct i on w as s o fl aw ed thati ti s a due pr oces s vi ol at i on i n i t s el f. 78 F irst, h e p o in ts to th e d y in g d e c lar a tio n th a t W ilh e lm m ade t o t he pol i ce w her ei n he s t at ed, “C l ar ence M i l l er di d t hi s t o m e. ” Second, he di s t i ngui s hes the s m al l s pot found on hi s s hi r tcuff

thatno w i t nes s i dent i fi ed pos i t i vel yas bl ood w i t h t he exc es s i ve bl ood found on M i l l er ’ s cl ot hes

. T hi r d, he bel i eves thatthe def ens i ve cut s on W i l hel m ’ s hands and mul t i pl e cut s and s l as hes on his t orso, front , back , head and face, show that this w as a one- per s on att ack on a m ovi ng t ar get
. Four t h, he al l eges that there w as n o fo ren sic ev iden ce su p p o rt ing M il ler’s cont ent i on t hatG ol dbl um began the as s aul tbyhi t t i ng W i l hel m i n t he bac k of hi s head w i t h a w r ench. Fi fth, M i l l erhad fr es h s cr at ches on hi s for earm s and w r i s t s 14 hour s aft ert he homi ci de w hi l e G ol dbl um di d nothave anys cr at ches

. Si xth, bl ack vi ny l gl oves r ecove r ed fr om t he s cene w er e s t ai ned w i t h W i l hel m ’ s bl ood and had hai r s cons i s t entw i t h M i l l er ’ s arm hai r . Fi nal l y , the bl ood sp a tter in d ica ted th a t th e b lo o d w a s c a st o f f in a lef t to r i ghtm ovement , s ugges t i ng thatthe ki l l erw as i n t he fr ont p a ss e n g e r se a t. ( Foot not es om i t t ed)

. A l s o of r el evanc e t o G ol dbl um ’ s “ac tual inn o ce n ce ” a ll eg ati o n , as G o ldb lum co n tend s an d the c o u rt addr es s es el s ew her e i n i t s opi ni on, i s the j uryi ns t ruct i on at G ol dbl um ’ s 1977 t r i al , w hi ch pr es ent ed the j uryw i t h a mi s t aken e x a m p l e o f

a c c o m p l i c e l i a b i l i t y. 28I t appea r s t o m e t hat , i f t hat cons t i tut i onal i s s ue w er e t o be addr es s ed, t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on coul d notbe s quared w ith due pr oces s . U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , t o be found gui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee m ur der— ei t her a s the pr i m aryact ororas an ac compl i ce — one m u s t h a v e a s p e c if

ic in te n t to k ill th e v ic tim

. See Sm i th v. H orn , 1 2 0 F
. 3 d 4 0 0 , 4 1 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). Y e t o n e o f th e tri al co u rt ’s ex am p les o f ac co m p li ce li ab il ityil lustrat ed a situ ati o n w h ere there w a s n o su c h sp e c if

ic in ten t: I f tw o m en agr ee t o r ob a bank a nd one man st ands o u tsi de as the l ookoutand anot her m an goes i n, and the man w ho i s i ns i de the bank sh o o t s and ki l l s a t el l er , t hey ar e bot h gui l t y of fi r s t degr ee m u rde r, i ncl udi ng t he m an s t andi ng outfr ont , beca us e he w as an ac compl i ce w ho w as act i vel yai di ng t he man w ho w as i ns i de t he bank pe r form i ng t he r obberyand both m en s hou l d be gui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee mur der beca us e of a s har ed cr i m i nal i nt entt o comm i tthats peci fi c cr i m e. R & R at 55 -56 (qu o ti n g T r. 3 4 3 4 -36 ). H e re , the tri al co u rt s ugges t s t hatt he l ookout

— w ho had no i nt ent t o ki l l

— coul d be f o u n d g u iltyo f

f irst d e g re e m u rd e r. T h is e x a m p le is p a rticu lar ly l i kel yt o have confus ed G ol dbl um ’ s j uryi n l i ghtof the fa ct s of the cas e, as i t i s uncont es t ed t hat M i l l erand G ol dbl um w er e i nvol ved in a sh are d crim inal en terprise p ri o r to th e kil li n g . I am there fo re unabl e t o acc eptt he court ’ s concl us i on thatthe tr i al cour t ’ s fl aw ed exampl e w as cur ed bythe r estof the i ns t ruct i on ( t he l anguage of w h ich is n o t, to sa ythe lea st, a m o d el of clarity ). B utt he ques t i on whe th e rth e a c compl i ce l i abi l i t yi ns t ruct i on w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l is fa r dif f e re n t f ro m th e q u e stio n th is co u rt is cal l ed upon t o addr es s . A nyconfus i on t hi s i ns t ruc ti o n m ayhave caus ed the j ur y , even i f fa i l i ng t o r i s e t o t he l evel of a s ubs t ant i ve cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, i s appr opr i at el y cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng w hethera pet i t i onerhas m ade a s how i ng of “a ct u al i nnocenc e” u n d er Schl up . G iven the s ign ifi ca n ce o f th e e rror, I find the ju ry in stru c tio n h ig h ly re lev a n t to w h e th e r an y re a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld c o n v ict G o ld b lu m in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e n o w b e f

o re th e c o u rt. 79 I n l i g h to f

t h i s e v i d e n c e , th e f

a c t s e l i c i t e d a tth e P CRA court ’ s evi dent i aryhear i ng ar e cl ear l yi nadequa t e t o det erm i neT he expe r t s r eadyt o t es t i fy fo r G ol dbl um have s t r ong 29 c re d e n tials. D r. M ich a e l B a d e n is th e D ire c to r of th e F o r e n sic Sci ence U ni tof th e N ew Y or k St at e Pol i ce, and has been “ an expert cons ul t ant i n num er ous cas es i ncl udi ng t he death of John B elus h i, the re ce n t r einv esti g ati o n into the d ea th o f M ed g ar E v ers an d t h e Con g r e s s i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f th e d e a t h s o f

Pr e s i d e nt J ohn F. K ennedyand D r . M art i n L utherK i ng. ” See A ff idav ito f D r. M i chae l B aden an d B arbar a C
. W ol f, M
. D
. ; A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 305- 06. D r . H enryC
. L ee, D i r ect orof the For ens i c R es ear ch T ra in in g C e n te r i n C o n n e c tic u t, s ee A pp. 291, has w or ked on hi ghpr ofi l e ca s es , i ncl u d ing t he O

. J
. Si m ps on t r i al , t he W i l l i am K enned y S m i t h r ape tr i al , t he J on B enetR amseyhom i ci de i nves t i gat i on , t he V al ue J etacc i denti nves t i gat i on, and pol i ce s h o o tin g in v e s t i g a tio n s in N e w Y o rk a n d N e w J e rs e y . See c u rr ic u lu m v ita e o f

D r. H e n ry C . L e e , avai l abl e at h ttp ://w w w . d rhe n ry lee.co m /abo u t/ d r_lee

_ cv

_ resu m e.pd f. D r. H erber tL
. M acD on el l , a n e x p erton blood spa t t er anal y si s, i s a founderof the B l oods t ai n E vi dence I ns t i tut e, author of “ove rone h u n d re d o rig in a l p a p e rs o n b o th a n a lytica l c h e m istrya n d f o re n sic s ci ence , ” and f

or m erPr es i dent of t he Int ernat i onal A s s oci at i on for I dent i fi cat i on. A ffi davi t of D r . H erber tL
. M acD onnel l ; A pp. 296- 97. T hes e expe r t s ’ exami nat i ons l ed the m t o concl ude that G o ld b lu m d id n o t d o th e f a ta l s ta b b in g . See L abor at oryR epor tand A ffi davi tof H enryC
. L ee, Ph. D
. ; A pp. 287- 95 ( “[I ] ti s m yopi ni on t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of for ens i c ce r t ai ntyon the bas i s of the evi dence avai l abl e thatG ol dbl um w as nott he i ndi vi dual w ho i nfl i ct ed the fa t al s t ab w ounds t o M r . W i l hel m . ”); A ffi davi tand For ens i c R epor to f D r . H erber tL
. M acD onnel l ; A pp. 296- 304 ( concurr i ng “compl et el y ” w it h t he af fi davi tof D r . H enryC
. L ee and not i ng t hat “the abs ence of phot ogr aphs does n o t pr event gener al concl us i ons fr om bei ng dr aw n bas ed upon the des cr i pt i on 80 w hether“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatno r eas onabl e j ur or w o u ld h a v e c o n v ic te d ” G o ld b lu m . Schl up , 513 U
. S. at327. T he PC R A courthear d fr om D r . W echt , butdecl i ned t o t ake tes tim o n yf

ro m th re e o th e r w e ll-cr e d e n tiale d f o re n sic e x p e rts pr epar ed t o t es t i fyt hatthe fa t al s t ab w ounds w er e noti nfl i ct ed b yGo l d b l u m. M o re o v e r, th e P C R A c o u rt, i n m a k in g its 29o f th e b loo d stai n s a s w a s re p o rt ed in this ca se” ); A ff idav ito f D r. M i chae l B aden and B arbar a C
. W ol f, M
. D
. ; A pp. 307 ( “[I ] ti s our opi ni on t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal cert ai ntyon the bas i s of evi dence avai l abl e thatG ol dbl um w as nott h e i ndi vi dual w ho inf li cted the f

atal st ab w o u n d s to M r. W il h elm

. ”).

81 fac tual det erm i nat i ons , does notappea rt o have c ons i der ed the aff i davi t s of thes e otherexpert s . I n i t s opi ni on eval uat i ng G o ldb lum ’s i n ef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce claim , the P C R A co u rt expr es s l yaddr es s es onl yD r . W echt ’ s t es t i m onyatthe evi dent i aryhear i ng, T obyW ol s on’ s r ebut t al t es t i m ony , and the t r i a l c o u r tj u r yi n s t ru c t i o n o n a c c o mp l i c e l i a b i l i t y . Th e P CRA courtm akes no m ent i on of the s ubm i s s i ons of G ol dbl um ’ s ot her expert s i ns ofaras t heypert ai n t o t he mer i t s of the i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e c la im

. See G oldbl um , N o. C C 76021267, s l i p. op. at 3 -5 . T u rn in g to w h e th e r it er re d in f a ili n g to p e rm it G o ld b lu m to cal l w i t nesses ot her than D r. W echt, the P C R A cou rtst at es: [T]he Super i orC our t ’ s opi ni on [r emandi ng foran evi dent i aryhear i ng] i ndi cat es thatthei rr evi ew w as s t r i ct l yconfi ned t o t he i s s ue of D r . W echt ’ s t es t i m onyand re m a n d e d o n th a t b a sis a lo n e . T h e c o u rt w ill n o t p e rm it t he def endantt o conducta hea r i ng on i s s ues w hi ch the Super i orC our thas del i ber at el yexcl uded fr om i t s opi ni on and or derof r emand. H ad the Super i orC our ti ndi cat ed t hatt he addi t i onal w i t nes s es w er e t o be addr es s ed atan evi dent i aryhear i ng, thi s C our tw oul d have done s o. See i d. , slip o p . at 6 . A f f irm in g th e P C R A c o u rt’s d e c isio n to excl ude thes e expe r t s , the Super i orC our tm ade pl ai n i t s pos i t i on t hats ubm i s s i ons byot herexpert s w er e i r r el evantt o t he i s s ue befor e them: “Thi s C our tdi d notr emand fora hea r i ng on t he i m pactof otherpot ent i al defe ns e w i t nes s es thatw er e notcal l ed att r i al

. ” G oldbl um , N o. 174 W D A 2001, s l i p op. at11. I n vi ew o f t h e n a r r o w s c o p e o f

t h e S u p e r i o rCo u r t ’ s r e ma n d , th e P CRA c o u rt v e rylik e lyd id n o t er r, as a m a tter o f sta te la w , in e x c lu d in g th e d e f

e n se e x p e rts o th e r th a n W e c h t an d in di s r egar di ng t hei rs ubm i s s i ons . H ow ever , w i t houtthi s evi dence , t he PC R A court ’ s evi dent i aryhear i ng fai l s t o i l l um i nat e w hether82 G ol dbl um m akes a s uffi ci ents how i ng of “a ctual i nnocenc e. ” T hus , as a mat t erof fe der al l aw , the l i m i t ed hea r i ng conduct ed byt he PC R A courtfai l s t o pr ovi de an a dequat e bas i s for det erm i ni ng w hethert her e i s s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on over G o ld b lu m ’s s e c o n d h a b e a s p e titio n . D e sp ite th is m a n if

e st in a d e q u a c y , the D istric t C o u rt, i n adopt i ng t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on, s ubs cr i bed t o t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s concl us i on thatan evi dent i aryhear i ng w as notcal l ed for

. I n m aki ng her determ i nati on , t he M agis t rat e Judg e i nd i cat ed thatthe ex erci se o f h e rd i s c r e t i o n “ i s i n f

o r m e d b y T

o w n se n d v . Sa in
. . . , w hi ch sets fo rth the f

o ll o w ing b ase s fo r ho lding an ev iden ti ary hear i ng”: ( 1) [T]he m er i t s of the fa ctual di s put e w er e notr es ol ved in th e sta te h e a rin g ; (2 ) th e sta te f a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n is notfai r l ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d as a w hol e; ( 3) the fac t
- fi ndi ng pr ocedur e empl oy ed bythe s t at e courtw as no tadeq uate t o aff

ord a fu l l and fai r hear i ng ; (4) there i s a s ubs t ant i al al l egat i on of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence ; ( 5) t he mat er i al fac t s w er e notadequa t el ydevel oped atthe s t at e- cour thear i ng; or( 6) foranyr eas on i tappea r s that th e sta te trie r o f

f a c t d id n o t af

f o rd th e h a b e a s a p p lica n t a ful l and fa i rfac thear i ng. M agi s t r at e J udge’ s M emora ndum O r derof M ay11, 2005 ( “M em. O r der ”) at3- 4 ( quot i ng Tow ns end , 3 7 2 U
. S
. at 31 3 ); A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 70- 71. T he M agi s t r at e J udge conc l uded that “[n] one of the Tow ns end f a c to rs r e q u ire th a t a h e a rin g b e h e ld her e” a nd t hat“[i ] n fac t , the s t at e courtr ecor d appea r s t o be c o m p lete , an d to h a v e p ro v id e d p e tit io n e r a f u ll an d f a ir oppor tuni t yt o l i t i gat e hi s cl ai m s . ” Id

. a t 4 ; A p p . 7 1
.A s t he M agi s t r at e J udge made t hi s fac tual det erm i nat i on 30 w ith o u t co n d u c tin g a n e v id e n ti a ryh e a rin g , the d e ter m in a tio n is s u b je c t to p le n a ry re v ie w . See Ri char ds o n v. Penn. B d. of P r obat i on and P ar ol e 4 2 3 F .3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 7 n .3 (3 rd C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 83 T hi s det erm i nat i on cannotbe r econc i l ed w i t h t he r ecor d. 30 T h e P C R A co u rtd id n o t con d u ct a h ea ri n g o n M il ler’s c o n f e ss io n — th e v e ryso rt o f

“ su b sta n tial a lleg a tio n o f n e w ly d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e ” th a t, w ith in th e f ra m e w o rk th e M a g istra te J u d g e e n d o r s e s , wo u l d r e q u i r e a n e v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g . M e m. O r derat3 ( quot i ng Tow ns end , 372 U
. S. at313) ; A pp. 70. T he court , i n i t s opi ni on, concl udes thatthi s new evi dence , “atthe v e rym o st, . . . fu rth e r im p e a c h e s [ M ill e r’s ] c re d ib ili ty , b u t th is eff ecti s nots i gni fi cant
. ” I appr eci at e thatM i l l er ’ s r eci t al thathe p a r t i c i p a t e d i n k i l l i n g W i l h e l m d o e s n o te x c u l p a t e Go l d b l u m, w ho, acc or di ng t o M i l l er , w as a co- par t i ci pant
. B uti f M i l l er w ere avai l able t o tes t i fyatan ev i den t i aryheari ng , cross e x a m in a tio n m ig h t s h e d a d d e d lig h t o n th e a s s e rt e d p a rt ic ip a tio n . Poss i bl yi tw oul d r evea l thatG ol dbl um s t abbed i ni t i al l y , butnot d e e p ly , an d th e n sto p p e d ; o r th a t M ill e r lu re d W ilh e lm to m e e t in th e p a rk e d c a r so th a t G o ld b lu m c o u ld b e a t h im , b u t th a t o n ly M i l l er had st abb ed W i l helm

. O r, on the o t her han d, cross exami nat i on m i ghts t r engthen the s t at e’ s i ns i s t ence that G ol dbl um pl ay ed a w i l l i ng r ol e i n W i l hel m ’ s m ur der

. T he poi nt i s t hat , w i t houtan evi dent i aryhear i ng i n w hi ch M i l l eri s r equi r ed to an sw er q u esti o n s, o n e c an h ard lyb e su re tha t th e c o n fe ssion ’s i m pai r m entof M i l l er ’ s cr edi bi l i t y“i s nots i gni fi cant
. ” T h e c o u rtsay s tha t i t “do [e s] no t un d erstan d w h y[M il ler] w oul d have a new m ot i ve t o t el l the truth atthatl at e dat e. ” A ccor di ng t o W ar den R i char d G i gl i ot t i , t o w hom M i l l er confe s s ed, M i l l er“s t at es thathe has m ade pe ace w i t h J es us C h rist a n d th a t h e h a s n o re a so n to lie b e c a u se h e k n o w s d u e to hi s heal t h t hathe pr obabl yw i l l notbe al i ve forverym any y e a rs.” D e p o sitio n o f

R ich a rd G ig lio tti ; A p p . 3 3 0 . T h is s u re ly is a p lau sib le m o tiv e , o n e th a t co u ld a c c o u n t f o r a d isp o sitio n to t el l t he trut h now —

j us tas the pr os pectof a murde rconvi ct i on c o u ld a c c o u n t f

o r a d e c isio n to lie a t G o ld b lu m ’s tria l. T h is conce r n not w i t hs t andi ng, M i l l er ’ s confe s s i on, cons i der ed i n l i ghtIn theirsubm i ssi on s, tw o o f G oldbl um ’s exp ert s, D rs . 31 B aden a nd W echt , t ake di r ecti s s ue w i t h T obyW ol s o n ’ s concl us i on t hat , w i t houtbl ood s pat t erphot ogr aphs , fore ns i cal l ys ound j udgm ent s as t o G ol dbl um ’ s i nnocenc e ar e not pos s i bl e. D r . W echt fur t heras s er t s t hat , had he be en perm i t t ed t o pr es ents urr ebut t al t es t i m ony at t he PC R A cour t ’ s evi dent i aryhear i ng, he w oul d have t es t i fi ed that“fi r m , r el i abl e and trus t w or t hyconc lusions [] can be d ra w n f ro m th e d e s c ri p tio n o f

th e b lo o d s p a tte r g i v e n a t tr ia l.” A ff idav ito f D r. C yri l H

. W ec h t; A p p . 2 8 6
. T h ese co n clus ion s are cons i s t ent w i t h t he C om m onw eal t h’ s s t at ementt o the D i s t r i ct C o u rtthat “the test im o n yo f D etec tiv e F ree m an [a t G o ldb lum ’s t r i al ] adequa t el yaddr es s ed the i s s ue of bl ood on the dashboa r d” and that , “al t hough actu al cl os e- up phot ogr aphs w er e nott aken, t her e i s no pr ej udi ce t o t he pet i t i oner . ” C om m onw eal t h’ s A ns w er to P e tit io n e r ’ s M o tio n f o r L e a v e o f

C o u rt to S e rv e R e sp o n d e n ts w ith R e q u e s t f

o r P ro d u c tio n o f

D o c u m e n ts a t 7 ; A p p . 8 0
. 84 of the r ecor d, i ncl udi ng the vi ct i m ’ s dy i ng decl ar at i on — “C l ar ence M i l l erdi d t hi s t o m e” — and evi dence of a one

- per s on att ack, s t i l l coul d es t abl i s h t hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have v o t e d t o c o n v i c tGo l d b l u m. F u rth erm o re, co n tr aryto the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s det erm i nat i on, t he r ecor d al s o cont ai ns “mat er i al fac t s ” that
“ w e re n o t a d e q u a te ly d e v e lo p e d in th e s ta te -c o u rt h e a ri n g ,” w hi ch —

agai n, w i t hi n t he fr amew or k t he M agi s t r at e J udge p u rp o rt s to a d o p t —

w o u ld re q u ir e a f

e d e ra l e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . M em. O r derat3 ( quot i ng Tow ns end , 3 7 2 U .S . a t 3 1 3 ); A p p . 7 0
. T he PC R A courtdecl i ned t o cons i ders ubm i s s i ons fr om G ol dbl um ’ s expert s ot herthan D r . W echt , ort o t ake t es t i m ony f ro m th o se e x p e rts. Y e t th e se su b m iss io n s c o n tain f o re n sic r eas ons forbel i evi ng t hatG ol dbl um i s i nnocentand, s i gni fi cant l y , r eas ons w hya s ound for ens i c as s es s m entof G ol dbl um ’ s i nnocenc e i s pos s i bl e bas ed on the evi dence a v a ilab le. T h e c o u rt b a lan c e s th e e x p e rts’ a ss e ss m e n ts

31

— w h ich, W ec h t apa rt , w ere n o t dev elop ed in an ev iden ti ary hear i ng —

agai ns tt he s t r ength of TobyW ol s on’ s r ebut t al t es t i m ony , w hi ch w as devel oped i n an evi dent i aryhear i ng, and concl udes t hatt es t i m onyfr om thes e expe r t s w oul d be “t ent at i ve”Sch ri ro , r el i ed on by the cour t , does nots uppor tdeni al of 32 a hea r i ng. I n Sch ri ro , the C o u rt ad d resse d w h ethe r a d istri ct co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng on a p e titio n e r’ s u n d e rl y in g h a b e a s c la im

. See 127 S. C t
. at1939- 40. T he C our tcons i der ed h o w A E D PA , byenhanc i ng t he l evel of d ef erence acc or ded t o s t at e courtj udgm ent s , aff ect s t he det erm i nat i on w hethert o gr antan evi dent ia r yhear i ng on t he cons t i tut i onal m er i t s of a ha beas cl ai m . W i t h r es pectt o thati s s ue, t he C our thel d t hat“i f the rec or d r efut es t he appl i cant ’ s fac tual a lleg a tio n s o r oth e rw ise p re c lu d e s h a b e a s re lief , a d istric t c o u rt is notr equi r ed t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. ” Id

. a t 1 9 4 0
. Sch ri ro t hus hol ds t hatan evi dent i aryhear i ng i s i nappr opr i at e w hen a p e t i t i o n e r ’ s s u b s t a n t i v e c l a i m c o u l d n o tp r o v i d e a b a s i s f o rr el i ef under§ 2254. T hathol di ng thus r efi nes t he C our t ’ s pr i orgui dance t hat a di s t r i ctcourthas author i t yt o conducta hea r i ng “w her e an a p p lic a n t f

o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s a lle g e s f a c ts w h ic h , i

f pr oved , w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. ” Tow ns end v . Sa in , 372 U
. S. 293, 312 ( 1963) ( emphasi s added)

. T h is c our thas appl i ed Sch ri ro a c c o rd in g ly. See Taylor v. H orn , _ _ F
. 3d__, N o. 04- 9016, 2007 W L 2 7 2 8 6 6 8 (3 d C ir. S e p t. 20 , 2 0 0 7 ) (a f f irm in g , p u rsu a n t to Sch ri ro , a dis t ri ctcou rt ’s den i al of an ev i den t i aryheari ng becau se t he r ecor d r efut ed the pet i t i oner ’ s fac tual all eg at i ons , r ender i ng a fu rt herevi dent i aryhear i ng on t he mer i t s of the pet i t i oner’ s c o n s titu tio n a l c la im u n n e c e s s a ry). 85 and “a m ount i ng t o s pecul at i on” ( quot i ng G oldbl um , No
. CC 76021267, s l i p. op. at5. G i ven the cr edent i al s of the expe r t s , the court ’ s confi dentas s um pt i on of the non- per s uas i venes s of t est i m on yno tbefo re the co urtstri kes m e, w i t h all res pect, as unw arr ant ed. W ith o u t a f

e d e ra l ev id e n tiary he a rin g , the c o u rt m u st re ly on fac tual det erm i nat i ons thatw er e deve l oped fr om an i nadequa t e hea r i ng and, I bel i eve, ar e s i gni fi cant l yw eake ned by t he record w hen view ed in i t s ent i rety . G oldbl um proffers a w e a lth o f

e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h is a lleg a tio n s. B u t n o c o u rt — sta te o r f e d e ra l — h a s h e ld a h e a rin g a d e q u a te to a d d re ss th is e v id e n c e ; I th e re f

o re b e liev e th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o do s o. 32Unl i ke the pet i t i oneri n Sch ri ro , G o ld b lu m a ss e rts f a c ts th a t, if tru e , w o u ld e n tit le h im to th e re lief h e se e k s. A lso in c o n tra st to t he pet i t i oneri n Sch ri ro , the r el i ef i n i m m edi at e ques t i on i s not habea s r el i ef, butt he gr ant of an evi dent i ary hear i ng t hatbear s on t he pr ocedur al ques t i on w hetherthe D i s t r i ct C our thas j ur i s di ct i on to a d ju d ic a te th e h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n . C ris tin , n o t Sch ri ro , i s the a p p o s i t e a u t h o r i t y. Foot not e 16 of the court ’ s opi ni on r efe r s t o t he w r i t t en 33 s t at ements o f t w o per s ons w ho have e xpr es s ed gr ave doubt s t hat t he j ur yw hi ch found G ol dbl um guil ty o f m ur derr eac hed a s u p p o r t a b l e v e r d i c t
. I n t h e t wo n u mb e r e d p a r a g r a p h s t h a tf o l l o w, an att empt i s m ade t o pl ace the s t at ement s i n a s om ew hatbr oader cont extand t o pr ovi de s om ew hatm or e ext ended e xcerpt s fr om t he sta tem e n ts: 1
. O n Jan u ary1 4 , 1 9 9 4 , the H o n o rab le D o n ald E

. Z iegler, t he j udge w ho pr es i ded at G ol dbl um ’ s t r i al ( J udge Zi egl ers erved o n the A ll eg h en yC o u n tyC o u rto f C o m m o n P leas b ef o re ap p o intm en t t o the f

ed era l ben ch ), w rote to th e P en n sy lvan ia B o ard o f P a r d o n s i n s u p p o r to f G o l d b l u m ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o rc l e m e n c y. A m ong t he gr ounds for cl emency ur ged byJ udge Zi egl erw er e the fol l ow i ng: Fi r s t , M r . G ol dbl um has pr ovi ded per s uas i ve evi dence t hathe m aybe s ervi ng t i m e forcomm i t t i ng an ar s on and w i tnes sing [emphasi s i n or i gi nal ] a hom ici d e. M er e pr es ence atthe s cene of a 86 I I I . C onc l us i on:

T h e la w e n title s G o ld b lu m to a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . I w o u ld re m a n d th is c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt w ith a n o rd e r to conducta hea r i ng on w hetherthe pet i t i onerhas m ade a s how i ng of “a ctual i nnocenc e” s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h s ubj ectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on ov er hi s habea s pet i t i on . I w ou l d d o so b ecause Schl up and C ris tin affo rd G oldbl um such p rot ect i on s — pr ot ect i ons w hos e i m por t ance i s pow er ful l yi l l us t r at ed bythe ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed bythi s cas e. 33c ri m e d o e s n o t c o n s titu te e v id e n c e o f c o m p lic ity in a h o m ic id e . . . . A l t h o u g h t h e j u r y c h o s e t o b e l i e v e Cl a r e n c e M i l l e r , and convi ctM r . G ol dbl um of m ur der , I have be en tr oubl ed fory ear s by t he dy i ng decl ar at i on of the m u rdervi ct i m : “C l ar ence — C l ar ence M ill e r d id th is to m e .” It is a m o ra l an d leg a l p re c e p t th a t a p e rso n is p re su m e d to sp e a k th e tru th w h e n h e is f a c e d w ith d e a th . T h e v ictim knew he was d y i n g a n d h e n e v e rme n t i o n e d t h e n a me o f Cha r l es G ol dbl um . I n s hor t , the murde rconvi ct i on w as bas ed on the t e s t i mo n yo f

M i l l e ra n d t h e j u r y ’ s a p p a r e n td i s l i k e f o rM r . Go l d b l u m. In m yo p in io n , M r. M ill e r’s tes tim o n yw a s s u sp e c t an d q u ite fr ankl y , i f I w as the fac t fi nder , I w oul d have r ej ect ed as unper s uas i ve m u c h o f th e te s tim o n yo f

th is in d iv id u a l. L e tter o f th e H o n o ra b le D o n a ld E . Z ieg ler to th e P e n n sylv a n ia B o a rd o f P a rd o n s ; A p p . 3 1 0
. 2
. On J u n e 1 7 , 1 9 9 8 , F
. P e t e rDi x o n , th e l a wy e rwh o , s o me t w o deca des ear l i er , s erved fors ever al y ear s i n t he O ffi ce of t he Al l e g h e n yCo u n t yDi s t r i c tAt t o r n e ya n d , a c c o r d i n g t o h i s o wn e s tim a te , “ p ro s e c u te d a p p ro x im a te l y1 0 0 h o m ic id e c a s e s ,” exec ut ed an a ffi davi ti n w hi ch he s t at ed:

I w as t he tr i al pr os ecut ori n t he ca s e of C om m o n w ea lth of P enns ylvani a v. C har l es J. “Zeke” G oldbl um . . . and the compani on cas e of C om m onw eal th of P enns ylvani a v. C l ar ence Mi l l er . T hese tw o c a se s c o n c e rn e d p rim a rilyth e m u rd e r o f G e o rg e W ilh e lm in dow nt ow n Pi t t s bur gh on February10, 1976. T he ca s e of C om m onw ealth v. C har l es G oldbl um w as t he m ostprom i nen tcase i n m y career as a l aw y er. Itw as al so t he m ost fac tual l ycompl ex and mostdi ffi cul tt o under s t and of a nycas e I have e v e r b e e n in v o lv e d w ith

. I h a v e re c e n tlyb e e n e x p o se d to in f o r m a tio n c o n c e rn in g th is c a se w h ich w a s n o t av a ilab le to m e a t th e tim e o f trial. T h is inf o rm ati o n is co n tai n ed in v a ri o u s af fid av it s an d in G o ldb lum ’s 87stat em en t, all o f w h ich is pa rto f th e re co rd in M r. G o ldb lum ’s p re s e n t p o s t- c o n v ic tio n litig a tio n . Seei ng t h is n ew i nform at i on caus ed me t o go back a nd c a re f u lly re v ie w a n d s tu d yth e tr ia l tr a n s c ri p t in th is m a tte r. B as ed on myr evi ew of the tr i al and t he i nform at i on w hi ch has been a vai l abl e s i nce the t r i al , I have c om e t o t he veryfi r m concl us i on t hatC har l es G ol dbl um had not hi ng t o do w i t h the murde rof G eor ge W i l hel m ot hert han bei ng a fr i ght ened w i t nes s t o that m ur derand an a c c e s s o ry a f

te r t h e f a c t. . . . D es pi t e mybes teff

or t s i n tr y i ng t hes e ca s es , a mi s carr i age of ju s tic e h a s o c c u rr e d

. A f f id a v it o f F . P e te r D ix o n ; A p p . 3 1 2 -1 3
. I ag ree w ith the c o u rtthat thes e statem e n ts of o p inion are “n o t evid en ce . ” F o r m e itthere fo re f o ll o w s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt h a d n o o b lig a tio n to f

a c to r t h e Z ie g ler a n d D ix o n sta tem e n ts in to i t s as s es s m entof w hethert o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. M yvi ew t hati tw as error— an abus e of di s cr et i on — on t he partof the D i s t r i ctC our tt o decl i ne t o conduct an evi dent i ary hear i ng does not d e p e n d o n th e Z ie g le r a n d D ix o n s ta te m e n ts
. O n t he otherhand, I am bou n d t o s aythat , gi ven J udge Z i egl er ’ s and M r . D i xon’ s s peci al per s pect i v es an d form al r es pons i bi l i t i es w i t h r es pectt o G ol dbl um ’ s t r i al , t he vi ew s t he tr i al j udge and t r i al pr os ecut or have expr es s ed s eem t o m e t o add furt her im p e tu s to w h a t I c o n c e iv e to b e th e d u ty o f th e f e d e ra l co u rts to g iv e careful scruti ny , pu rs uan t t o an evident i ary heari ng , to G o ld b lu m ’s c la im s . 88