2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-30-2008 

# U SA v . M ar t in P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2937

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an 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 " U SA v . M ar t in" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1679. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1679T he H onor abl e J ohn T . N oonan, J r . , U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe N i nth J udi ci al * C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 2937 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . RO BE RT E AR L M AR T I N, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 98- cr - 0178 ( H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o) A r gued M ar ch 1, 2007 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , M c K E E a n d N O O N A N , C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed: J anuary30, 2008) P AUL M . M E S S I NG, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) K ai ry s , R udovs ky , E ps t ei n & M es s i ng 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, Penns y l vani a 19107 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant M AR Y E . CR AWLE Y, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes tnutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19106 A t t or neyforA ppel l ee2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . R obertE ar l M art i n appea l s fr om an or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ecthi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255. M art i n w as convi ct ed of a r m ed bank ro b b e ry a n d f

ir e a rm s v io la tio n s a n d s e n te n c e d to lif e im p ri s o n m e n t u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3599( c) , the “thr ee s t r i kes ” s t atut e. M art i n’ s tw o pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e fors econd d e g re e m u rd e r a n d a lso f o r a rm e d b a n k ro b b e rya n d f ire a rm p o ss e ss io n . O n d ire c t ap p e a l, w e a f f ir m e d h is ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rtin , 46 Fed. A pp’ x 119, 123 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 2253 and 1291, a n d w ill a f

f ir m . I. A gr and j ur yr etur ned a tw o- counti ndi ctm entagai ns tR ober tE ar l M art i n, char gi ng hi m w i th arm ed bank r obbery , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2113( d) , and us i ng and ca r r y i ng a fi r earm dur i ng a cr i m e of vi ol ence , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . T he i ndi ctm ent c h a rg e d M a rtin w ith ro b b in g a U n ited B a n k b ra n c h a t 2 8 2 0 W e st G ira rd A v e n u e in Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a, on M ar ch 6, 1998, s t eal i ng $6, 694 fr om the bank, and us i ng a s aw ed- off, doubl e- barr el ed s hot gun dur i ng the r obbery . T he ent i r e arm ed r obberyw as c a p tu re d o n th e b a n k ’s v id e o ta p e s u rv e illa n c e .3

T he ca s e w as t r i ed t o a j ur y . A ttr i al , the j urycompar ed ei ghtyphot ogr aphs fr om the bank’ s s ur vei l l ance camer as , t he vi deo s ur vei l l ance t ape of the bank r obbery , and a phot ogr aph of M art i n t aken on the dayof hi s arr ai gnm ent . A s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph of the ro b b er leav ing the b an k , w h ich w e h av e e x am ined , is cl ea r an d d ef init e. T h e jury obs erved M art i n i n per s on t hr oughoutthe tr i al . T hr ee ba nk empl oy ees t es t i fi ed aboutt he r obberyand pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed M ar t i n as the i ndi vi dual w ho r obbed the bank. T w o of th e se b a n k e m p lo y e e s, S a n d ra R isc o a n d K im b e rlyS m iley , ide n tifie d M a rtin f ro m a p h o to s p re a d s h o rt ly af

te r t h e ro b b e ry. Sandr a R i s co, t he bank’ s head t el l er , t es t i fi ed M art i n ent er ed the bank, putw hat “loo k ed li k e a ri fle w ith b arrels [tha t w ere ] ve rysh o rt ” u n d er the b an k sec u ri tyg u ard Sm i l ey ’ s chi n. M art i n br oughtt he s ecur i t yguar d t o R i s co’ s t el l erw i ndow and l ooked at R i s co, m ot i oni ng t o hert o buzz hi m i nt o t he t el l erar ea. A ft erthe r obbery , R i s co descri bed t he robb er as a black m al e, a few i nch es t al l er than fi ve fe etsi x inches, 130–140 pounds , w ear i ng a gr een ba s ebal l cap, a zi pped- up bl ue j acke t , and havi ng a “s tr aggl y , ” uns haven f

ace . She r emem ber ed the r obberhad a di s t i nct i ve “s i de- t o- s i de” w al k. FB I A gentR onal d M anni ng had obs erved M art i n w hi l e he w as i n FB I cus t odyon M a rc h 2 5 , 1 9 9 8 , a n d te s tif ie d M a rt in m o v e d w ith a “ p ig e o n -t o e d ” w a lk . A ccor di ng t o K i m ber l eySm i l ey , a w om an w ho w as a uni form ed butunarm ed s ecur i tyoffi cerpr ovi ded t o t he bank bya pr ofes s i onal s ecur i t ys ervi ce, a man ent er ed the b a n k a t a b o u t 1 2 :3 0 , M a rc h 6 , 1 9 9 8 . H e w e n t u p to th e te lle rs ’ w in d o w a n d lo o k e d in .4

S m ileya sk e d th e m a n h is b u sin e ss . H e sa id th a t h e w a s lo o k in g f o r “ a tall f

e m a le w ith l ong hai rors om ethi ng. ” Sm i l eyt ol d hi m thatther e w as no one l i ke thati n t he bank on thi s day . T he man l eft . T w entym i nut es l at erthe s ame m an r eturned and poi nt ed a s aw ed- off s hotgun atSm i l ey . She w as appr oxi m at el ythe s ame hei ghtas the man and l ooked di r ect l yi nt o hi s ey es . She s m acke d the gun. T he man hi therw i t h i ton t he r i ght s i de of he rhead a nd as ked i f Sm i l eythoughtthathe w as pl ay i ng. T he man gr abbed Sm i l ey ’ s col l ar , s tuck the gun underhercol l arand pul l ed herthr ough t he l obbyt ow ar ds the b ac k o f th e b an k . T h e m an k ep t say ing this w as a sti ck u p an d tel li n g the b an k tel lers t o open up the doort o t hei rar ea orhe w oul d ki l l Sm i l ey . T he man kepthol d of Sm i l ey unt i l theyent er ed the cus t om er s ’ s ervi ce a r ea, w her e he l efther . She w at ched a s he ent er ed the t el l er s ’ ar ea a nd as he bega n empt y i ng a dr aw er . She t hen fl ed i nt o t he s t r eet t o fi nd a t el ephone t o cal l t he pol i ce. Sm i l eyi dent i fi ed the def endantas the man she had s poken t o, w hos e gun s he had s l apped, w ho had hi theron t he fa ce a nd w ho had dr agged h e r f ro m th e f o y e r a c ro ss th e lo b b yto th e c u sto m e rs’ se rv ice a re a . S m ileytes tifie d , “I’ ll n e v e r f o rg e t h is f

a c e . A tt he end of

M ar ch, 1998, an F. B . I . agents how ed Sm i l eya var i etyof phot ogr aphs and s he w entdi r ect l yt o a phot ogr aph of the def endant , s ay i ng, “Thi s i s t he g u y .” C ro s s -e x a m in a tio n p ro d u c e d n o th in g to s h a k e S m ile y ’s re lia b ility o r r e c o lle c tio n . M ar gar etG r een, t he bank’ s cus t om ers ervi ce r epr es ent at i ve, t es t i fi ed s he obs erved M ar t i n poi nt i ng a s aw ed- off s hot gun atthe bank’ s s ecur i t yguar d and demandi ng t o be5

buzze d i nt o t he t el l erar ea. G r een buz zed i n M art i n and w at ched hi m ent erand exi tthe t el l erar ea. A ft ert he r obbery , G r een de s cr i bed the r obberas “a bl ack mal e, m edi um hei ght , m edi um bui l d, about. . . [160 t o 170] pounds , w ear i ng dark cl othi ng, pant s and j acke t , a j acke tt hatzi pped up the fr ont . ” P h ilad e lp h ia D e tec tiv e M a ryS e if e rt, th e a rre stin g o f

f ice r, tes tifie d a b o u t th e f a c ts l eadi ng t o M ar t i n’ s arr es t . O n cr os s - exami nat i on s he expl ai ned s he had r ece i ved i nform at i on fr om an i nform ant , E dna C ook, w ho had i dent i fi ed M art i n fr om the s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph and i ndi cat ed the barber s hop w her e M art i n w or ked. O n di r ect exami nat i on, D et ect i ve Sei ferts ai d s he had a r r es t ed M art i n, as oppos ed t o other i ndi vi dual s i n t he barber s hop w her e M art i n w as found, beca us e s he had “ r ecogni zed [M ar t i n] as bei ng t he per s on i n [the s ur vei l l ance ] phot ogr aph . . . t aken the dayof the r obbery . ” D efe ns e w i t nes s R i char d V or derB ruegge, an FB I phot ogr aphi c evi dence exami ner , t es t i fi ed he w as unabl e t o pos i t i vel yi dent i fyM art i n as the i ndi vi dual i n t he bank s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph, buts t at ed he “ w as verycl os e t o m aki ng an i dent i fi cat i on. ” A l l s i des s t i pul at ed thatt he r obberyl as t ed appr oxi m at el yone mi nut e. A s not ed, o n e i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n wi t n e s s s a w M a r t i n twi c e th a td a ya n d th e b a n k ’ s s u r v e i l l a n c e s y s t e m, a c tiv e th ro u g h o u t th e ro b b e ry, y ie ld e d e ig h ty p h o to g ra p h s o f th e ro b b e ry a n d th e ro b b e r. T he j ur yfound M art i n gui l t yon bot h char ges . A ft erdeny i ng M art i n’ s pos t - t r i al m o tio n f o r j u d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l, U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a rtin , N o. 98- 178, 2000 W L 233217 ( E . D . Pa. Feb. 25, 2000) , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d M art i n on A ugus t1, 2001, t o l i fe6

i m pr i s onm entundert he “thr ee s t r i kes ” s t atut e, 18 U . S. C . § 3559( c) , beca us e M art i n had tw o p rio r v io len t f

e lo n yc o n v ictio n s. M a rtin tim e lya p p e a led . W e a f f irm e d h is convi ct i on and s ent ence on J ul y30, 2002, fi ndi ng “the evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al w as s ubs t ant i al . . . [and] t her e w as ampl e evi dence forthe j uryt o det erm i ne M art i n’ s gui l t . ” Ma rtin , 46 Fed. A pp’ x at123. M ar t i n fi l ed a t i m el ypr o s e pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255, cont endi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el forhi s tr i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o: ( 1) s uppr es s the arr es t i ng offi cer ’ s t es t i m ony ; ( 2) r eques ta B ar berj urychar ge t o caut i on the j uryabout unr el i abl e i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony ; and ( 3) cal l tw o al i bi w i t nes s es t o t es t i fy . T he D i s tr i ct C our tappoi nt ed couns el , and hel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. M art i n’ s tr i al couns el di d not te s tif ya t th e e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d M a rt in ’s § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n . U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rtin , N o . 9 8 -1 7 8 , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 1 6 8 3 8 3 (E .D . P a . M a y1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d M a rtin h a d n o t p re se n ted su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to sh o w h is tr i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o s uppr es s D et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onyhad notbeen s t r at egi c nor had M ar t i n demonstr at ed pr ej udi ce i n l i ghtof the otherevi dence befor e the j ury . T he cour tal s o found i tw oul d notnece s s ar i l yhave gr ant ed a r eques tfora B ar berj urychar ge if ask ed , an d itd id n o t fi n d “a rea so n ab le pro b ab il ityo f a d iffe ren t ou tcom e h ad the ju ry r ece i ved the B ar beri ns t ruct i on. ” The cour tfound M art i n had notdemonstr at ed that“tr i al couns el [had] m ade a n obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e s t r at egi c dec i s i on nott o cal l the al i bi w itn e s s e s .” T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t g ra n t a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility.7

W e gr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y“as t o w hethertr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve w i t h r es pectt o: ( 1) nothavi ng obj ect ed t o Sei fert ’ s i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony an d n o t hav ing cro ss-ex am ined w ith resp ec t th ere to; ( 2 ) no t hav ing req u ested jury i n s tru c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i mon y ; a n d ( 3 ) f a i l u r e t o c a l l M r . Po l k a n d M r . El as w i tnes s es . ” O urr evi ew overt he l egal componentof a c l ai m fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n s e l is p le n a ry w h ile u n d e rl y in g f a c ts a re re v ie w e d f

o r c le a r e rr o r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sm ack , 3 4 7 F . 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 7 (3d . C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). II. T o e sta b lish a c laim o f

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

c o u n se l, M a rtin m u st d e m o n stra te h is a tto rn e y ’s p e rf

o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t a n d th a t h e w a s p re ju d ic e d b yth is d e f

ic ie n c y . Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (19 8 4 ). T h at i s, h e m u st pro v e c o u n sel’s p e rf o rm a n c e “ f

e ll b e lo w a n o b

je c tiv e s ta n d a rd o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s ,” i d. at688, and that

“ th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, bu t f o r c o u n se l’s u n p ro f

e ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re su lt of the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent , ” id . at694. C ouns el cannotbe i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o r ai s e mer i t l es s cl ai m s , and couns el ’ s s t r at egi c choi ces ar e r evi ew ed w i t h a s tr o n g p re s u m p tio n o f

c o rr e c tn e s s . See Sis tr unk v. V aughn , 9 6 F . 3 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T o s ucce ed on an i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , pet i t i oner s m us ts how couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entbas ed on the “f act s of the part i cul arcas e, vi ew ed as of the t i m e of c ouns el ’ s conduct . ” Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U. S . a t6 9 0 . P e t i t i o n e r s ma yo v e r c o meF ed. R . E vid. 70 1 p rovi des: 1 I f the w i t nes s i s nott es t i fy i ng as an expe r t , the w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyi n t he form of opi ni ons ori nfer ence s i s l i m i t ed t o t hos e opi ni ons ori nfer ence s w hi ch ar e ( a) r at i onal l ybas ed on the per cept i on of the w i t nes s , ( b) hel pful t o a cl ear under s t andi ng of the w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyorthe det erm i nat i on of a f acti n i s s ue, and ( d) notbas ed on s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal , orot hers peci al i zed know l edge w i t hi n t he s c o p e o f R u le 7 0 2 . T he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee N ot es forR ul e 701 s ugges tcr os s - exami nat i on m aybe a 2 hel pful t ool forpoi nt i ng outw eakne s s i n t es t i m onybeca us e “ne ces s i t yas a s t andar d for p e rm itt in g o p in io n s a n d c o n c lu sio n s h a s p ro v e d to o e lu siv e a n d to o u n a d a p tab le to 8 th e “ p re su m p tio n th a t co u n se l’s c o n d u c t f a lls w ith in th e w id e ra n g e o f re a so n a b le pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance , ” i d. at689, by“s how i ng thatno s ound s t r at egypos i t ed bythe [governm ent ] coul d have s uppor t ed the conduc t , ” Thom as v. V ar ner , 428 F. 3d 491, 500 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). U n d e r th e p re ju d ice p ro n g , “a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyis o n e ‘su f f icie n t to underm i ne conf

i dence i n t he out come. ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G r ay , 878 F. 2d 702, 710 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at694) . W e mustcons i derthe t ot al i t yof the e v id e n c e a t trial in o u r p re ju d ice e v a lu a tio n : “‘ a v e rd ict o r c o n c lu sio n o n lyw e a k ly su p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd is m o re lik e lyto h a v e b e e n a f f e c ted b ye rro rs th a n o n e w ith overw hel m i ng r ecor d s uppor t . ’ ” I d. at711 ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 6 ).

A. M ar t i n cont ends t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve i n notat t empt i ng t o excl ude D et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onyas i nadmi s s i bl e l ayopi ni on underFed. R . E vi d. 701 1 beca us e s he w as notan ey ew i t nes s t o t he r obbery , and al s o beca us e couns el el i ci t ed pr ej udi ci al t es t i m onyon cr os s - exami nat i on. 2part i cul ars i tuat i ons forpurpos es of s at i s fac t oryj udi ci al admi ni s tr at i on. ” Fed. R . E vi d.

702 advi s or ycomm i t t ee’ s not e. T he fol l ow i ng i s par tof G overnm entcouns el ’ s di r ectexami nat i on of D et ect i ve 3 S e if e rt: Q [ G o v e rn m e n t ] : D i d yo u g o i n t o t h e b a rb e r s h o p w h e n yo u w e n tth e r e th a td a y? A [D et ect i ve Sei fert ] : Y es , I di d. Q : A nd did y ou hav e – w ere y ou byy ou rs el f or w i t h o t her persons? A : I w as w i t h o t her persons. Q : W h e n y o u w e n t in to th e b a rb e rsh o p , w a s th e re m o re th a n o n e p e rso n in sid e o r o n ly one per s on? A : T her e w as m or e than one. Q : A n d y o u a rre ste d th e d e f e n d a n t? A : Y es , I di d. Q : A gai n, w hatdi d y ou arr es thi m for , as oppos ed t o s om ebodyel s e i n t he barber s hop? A : I re c o g n ize d h im a s b e in g th e p e rso n in th is p h o to g ra p h , w h ich is a su rv e ill a n c e p h o to take n the d ayo f th e ro b b eryo f th e b an k rob b er. Q : N ow , att he t i m e thaty ou arr es t ed M r . M art i n, di d y ou know hi s ful l name? A : N o , I d id n o t. Q: Di d y o u h a v e a n yn a me f o rh i m? A: W e h a d r e c e i v e d t h e n a me o f Ro b , o n l yRo b , R- O- B.

9 W e bel i eve D et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onypr ovi ded admi s s i bl e bac kgr ound e v i d e n c e e x p l a i n i n g t h e a r r e s t , “ h e l p f u l t o a c l e a ru n d e r s t a n d i n g ” o f h e rt e s t i mo n y . As 3 th e a rre stin g o f

f ice r, D e tec tiv e S e if

e rt tes tifie d a b o u t th e c irc u m sta n c e s le a d in g to M ar t i n’ s arr es t , i ncl udi ng w hys he arr es t ed M art i n, as oppos ed t o anybodyel s e i n t he b a rb e rsh o p . D e tec tiv e S e if e rt sta ted sh e a rre ste d M a rtin b e c a u se sh e h a d “ re c o g n ize d h im [M ar t i n] as bei ng t he per s on i n t hi s phot ogr aph, w hi ch i s a s ur vei l l ance phot o t aken the d a yo f th e ro b b e ry . . . .” In suppo rtof h i s ar gu m ent, M art i n cit es U nited S tates v. L aP i erre , 998 F. 2d 1460 ( 9th C i r . 1993) . I n L aP i erre , t he def endantw as convi ct ed of ba nk r obberyand w eapons10

offe ns es . T he C our tof A ppeal s forthe N i nth C i r cui tvaca t ed and r emanded the c o n v ictio n f

o r se v e ra l re a so n s: 1 ) L a P ier re ’s r ig h t to c o u n se l w a s v io late d b e c a u se h is couns el w as pr ohi bi t ed fr om par t i ci pat i ng i n t he ea r l ys t ages of the pos t - char ge l i neup; 2) the i n- courtt es t i m ony , and pos s i bl ythe i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i ons , of thr ee pr os ecut i on w i tnes s es w er e t ai nt ed byt he i l l egal l i neup; 3) the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r efus al of an a cce pt ance of r es pons i bi l i t yr educt i on t o hi s s ent ence w as vague a nd perhaps i m pr oper l yi nfl uence d byt he fa ctt he def

endantappea l ed; and 4) a pol i ce of fi ceri nves t i gat i ng the r obber i es gave l ayopi ni on t es t i m onyas t o w hetherthe i ndi vi dual pi ctur ed i n s ur vei l l ance phot os w as L a P ie rr e . Id . a t 1 4 6 3 -6 5 , 1 4 6 7 -6 8 . I n L aP i erre , t he pol i ce of fi cerw ho i nves t i gat ed the bank r obber i es gave l ay opi ni on t es t i m onyatt r i al t hatm ade a n i dent i fi cat i on of the def endantas the bank r obber fr om t he s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs . T he N i nth C i r cui tfound the t es t i m ony“r an the r i s k of inv ad ing the p rov ince o f th e juryan d u n fa ir lyp rejud ici n g L aP ierre” a n d rem an d ed fo r a h a rm le s s e rr o r a n a lysis . Id . at 14 6 5 . H ere , the c o n text w as d iffe ren t. D etec ti v e S eife rt t es t i fi ed w hys he arr es t ed M art i n and nots om eone e l s e i n t he barber s hop. H ers t at ement w a s “ h e lp f

u l to a c lea r u n d e rsta n d in g ” o f M a rtin ’s a rre st. T h e re is n o ir o n -c la d ru le a g a in s t id e n tif ic a tio n te s tim o n yf

ro m a n a rr e s tin g o f

f ic e r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 688 F. 2d 1121, 1125- 26 ( 7th C i r . 1982) ( perm i t t i ng a noney ew i tnes s t o t es t i fyt hatt he def endantw as pi ctur ed i n a s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph) . Pol i ce offi cer s m ayt es t i fyaboutt he under l y i ng ci r cumst ance s of the arr es ts ubj ectt o pr oper11

evi dent i arys t andar ds . B ackgr ound evi dence i s “uni ver s al l yoffe r ed and a dm i t t ed as an ai d t o under s t andi ng, ” Fed. R . E vi d. 401 advi s orycomm i t t ee’ s not e, t o “compl et e[] t he s t oryof the cha r ged off ens e, ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ar dy , 2 2 8 F . 3 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 8 -49 (6th C ir . 2000) . Pol i ce of

fi cer s oft en make arr es t s bas ed on phot ogr aphs , vi deot apes oreven d ra w in g s o f

su sp e c ts. A s M a rtin c o n c e d e d a t th e e v id e n tiary he a rin g , the G o v e rn m e n t is “al l ow ed to bri ng ou tt he cir cum st ances o f t he arr est , ” as l on g as i ti s not “otherw i se i nadmi s s i bl e and pr ej udi ci al opi ni on evi dence . ” B eca us e Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onyw as an ite ra tio n o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e a rr e s t, it is n o t im p e rm is s ib le o p in io n e v id e n c e . Pol i ce of fi cer s m ay“compl et e[] t he s t oryof the cha r ged off ens e, ” abs entpr ej udi ce or in a d m is s ib ility. Id . A s not ed, t r i al couns el ’ s s t r at egi c choi ces ar e r evi ew ed w i t h a s t r ong pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s . B eca us e of the di s t or t i ng eff ect s of hi nds i ght , “a c our tm us ti ndul ge a stro n g p re su m p tio n th a t co u n se l' s c o n d u c t f a lls w ith in th e w id e ra n g e o f re a so n a b le pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance ; t hati s , t he def endantm us tover come t he pr es um pt i on that , under th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th e c h a lle n g e d a c tio n m ig h t b e c o n s id e re d s o u n d tr ia l s tr a te g y .” Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at689 ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . I n Thom as v. V ar ner , 428 F. 3d 491 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , w e s etfor t h a “t i er ed s t ructur e w i t h r es pectt o Str i ckland ’s s tra teg ic pr es um pt i ons . ” I

d. at499. W e s t at ed: A tfi r s t , t he pr es um pt i on i s t hatcouns el ’ s conductm i ghthave be en partof a soun d st rat egy. . . . In cases i n w hich the record do es not expli ci t l ydis cl ose tr i al couns el ’ s actual s t r at egyorl ack ther eof ( ei t herdue t o l ack of di l i gence on t he partof the pet i t i onerordue t o t he unava i l abi l i t yof couns el ) , the12

pr es um pt i on m ayonl ybe r ebut t ed thr ough a s how i ng thatno s ound s t r at egy

. . . co u ld h a v e su p p o rte d th e c o n d u c t. I d. a t 4 9 9 -5 0 0 (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). A n d “ it i s c ritica l th a t co u rts b e ‘h ig h ly defe r ent i al ’ t o couns el ’ s r eas onabl e s t r at egi c dec i s i ons and guar d agai ns tthe t empt at i on t o engage i n hi nds i ght . ” Mars hal lv. Hendr i cks , 307 F. 3d 36, 85 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at689- 90) . T he G overnm entm ayengage i n r ecor d- bas ed s p e c u la tio n in d e te rm in in g tr ia l c o u n s e l’ s s tr a te g y . B uehl v. V aughn , 166 F. 3d 163, 176 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he G overnm entpos i t s t hatdefe ns e tr i al couns el ’ s s t r at egyw as t o w eake n Sei fert ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of M ar t i n, t hati s , t o s how thatSei fertcoul d nothave i dent i fi ed M ar t i n i n the barber s hop w i t houtE dna C ook’ s hel p. M art i n cont ends tr i al couns el w as in e f f e c tiv e in c ro ss -e x a m in in g D e tec tiv e S e if e rt, p a rticu lar lyin a sk in g h o w sh e w a s a b le t o i dent i fyM ar t i n: Q [Tri al C ouns el ] : O kay . A nd y ou had r ece i ved i nform at i on thatday , as y ou in d ica ted b yin d ica tin g y o u h a d th e n a m e R o b f ro m a w o m a n n a m e d E d n a C o o k , is th a t co rre c t? A [D etec ti v e S eife rt ]: T h at i s co rrect, sir . Q : O kay . A nd E dna C ook had s een thatphot ogr aph thaty ou have ora copyof that phot ogr aph thaty ou have, and had i ndi cat ed t o y ou thats he thoughtthatw as R ob, i s th a tf a i rt o s a y? A : T h a t’s c o rre c t. Q : A nd s o arm ed w i t h t hati nform at i on, y ou w entt o a l ocat i on w her e Edna C ook sa id th a t th is p e rso n R o b w a s, m yc lien t, an d w e n t in th e re a n d y o u f o u n d h im in sid e , an d to d a yy o u ’re in d ica tin g th a t y o u th in k th a t th e in d iv id u a l p ictu re d in th a tp h o t o g r a p h i s m y c l i e n t , R o b M a r t i n , i s th a tf a i rt o s a y? A: I ti s h i m. Q : W el l , i ti s hi m ? H ow do y ou – d i d y ou – d o y ou hav e fi ng erpr i nts – A: W e l l , i tl o o k s l i k e h i m.T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n side red the s tr ateg yraised b ythe G o v ern m en t and fo u n d “[ i] t 4 coul d have be en a s t r at egi c dec i s i on on the partof tr i al couns el , and M art i n does not p re s e n t s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro v in g o th e rw is e .” 13 Q : – fr om t he bank? A: I tl o o k s l i k e h i m. Q : I tl ooks l i ke hi m . T hank y ou. B as ed on thi s excha nge, w e ca nnots aythe s t r at egypos i t ed bythe G overnm enti s out s i de th e b o u n d s o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r p re v a ilin g p ro f e s s io n a l n o rm s . See Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at689. A tt he evi dent i aryhear i ng on hi s § 2255 pet i t i on, M art i n had hi s tr i al couns el unders ubpoena butchos e nott o cal l hi m . M art i n’ s fai l ur e t o ques t i on tr i al couns el about hi s s tr at egydemonstr at es t he w eakne s s of M art i n’ s ar gum ent . M art i n cont ends ther e w as n o re a so n a b le b a sis f

o r tria l co u n se l’s a c tio n s. B u t b a sin g a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim 4 s ol el yon t he tr i al r ecor d s t r engthens the s t r at egi c pr es um pt i on beca us e a c our t“‘ m ay have no w ayof know i ng w hethera s eemi ngl yunus ual orm i s gui ded ac t i on bycouns el had a s tr at egi c mot i ve. ’ ” Y arbo roug h v. G entr

y , 540 U . S. 1, 8 ( 2003) ( quot i ng M assaro v. U ni t ed Stat es , 538 U . S. 500, 505 ( 2003) . A s not ed, the governm entcont ends tr i al couns el us ed D et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onyt o underm i ne the r el i abi l i t yof the s ur vei l l ance p h o to g ra p h s. M a rtin h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto e x a m in e d e f e n se trial c o u n se l to tryto re b u t a p re s u m p tio n o f

c o rr e c tn e s s b u t c h o s e n o t to . M arti n h as n o t pu t fo rth su ff ici en t evid en ce to d em o n str ate tri al co u n sel’s per form ance w as obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e ort o r ebuta purpor t ed tr i al s t r at egy . B uteven14

if M a rtin ’s tria l co u n se l’s p e rf o rm a n c e w e re d e f

icie n t, M a rtin d id n o t d e m o n stra te pr ej udi ce. T he j ur yvi ew ed the vi deo s ur vei l l ance t ape of the bank r obbery , s ur vei l l ance ph otographs, M art i n’s arres tph otograph, and heard t est i m on yfrom three ey ew i t nesses, al l of w hi ch theycoul d compar e. T hi s evi dence w as cons i der abl ym or e s ubs t ant i al and s ig n if ic a n t th a n D e te c tiv e S e if e rt ’s te s tim o n y . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 688 F. 2d 1121, 1126 ( 7t h C i r . 1982) ( “The j ur yw as pr es ent ed w i t h otherevi dence , s uch as the t es t i m onyof [a w i t nes s ] and the phot ogr aphs of the r obbery , ” s uch thatr ever s al w as not re q u ir e d w h e re n o n -e y e w itn e s s te s tim o n yh a d b e e n im p ro p e rl ya d m itte d u n d e r R u le 7 0 1 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound bec aus e of the “s ubs t ant i al amountof evi dence . . . apartfr om D etec ti v e S eife rt ’s t esti m o n y. . . [t]he re is no t a reaso n ab le pro b ab il itythat the ju ry w oul d have f

ound M art i n notgui l t yhad D et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onybeen e xcl uded or notel i ci t ed. ” W e agr ee w i t h t hi s as s es s m ent . I n par t i cul ar , the j uryhad the t es t i m onyof S m iley , the b a n k se c u rityg u a rd , w h o f irst e n c o u n ter e d a v isito r to th e b a n k u n d e r e n tirely peac eful ci r cumst ance s . Sm i l ey ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of the vi s i t oras the r obberw ho r etur ned tw en tym inu tes l ater, an d as th e d ef en d an t, w as in it self a b asis fo r th e jury ’s ve rdict. In lig h t o f th is o th e r e v id e n c e , w e s e e n o p re ju d ic e . W e agr ee w i t h ourdi s s ent i ng col l eague thatey ew i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on can be pr obl emat i c; cr os s - r aci al ey ew i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on even mor e s o, butthati s notati s s ue her e. A s not ed, t he cruci al evi dence i n t hi s cas e cons i s t ed of the ey ew i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on15

of M ar t i n byt hr ee ba nk empl oy ees , the vi deot ape, and the phot ogr aphs t aken bythe b a n k ’s s u rv e ill a n c e c a m e ra . M o re o v e r, th e ju ryo b se rv e d M a rtin th ro u g h o u t th e trial. O urdi s s ent i ng col l eague ci t es “the poorqual i t yof the bank s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs . ” B utt he s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph of the r obberl eavi ng the bank i s cl earand defi ni t e. O urdi s s ent i ng col l eague ci t es the j ury ’ s “expr es s i on of doubt ” and i t s “appa r ent h e s ita n c y ” to c o n v ic t. W e re s p e c tf u lly su g g e s t th a t th e s e o b s e rv a tio n s a re s p e c u la tiv e . T he C our tof A ppeal s addr es s ed the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence on di r ectappea l and found “ t her e w as ampl e evi dence forthe j uryt o det erm i ne M art i n’ s gui l t . ” M a rtin , 46 F ed. A pp ’x at12 3. O n the § 22 55 peti t i on , the D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd “t here w as a s ubs t ant i al amount of evi dence t he j urycoul d have r el i ed on apa r tfr om D et ect i ve S e if e rt ’s s ta te m e n ts .” W e a g re e . B . M a r t i n ’ s t r i a l c o u n s e l w a s n o ti n e f f e c t i v e f o rf a i l i n g t o r e q u e s ta c a u t i o n a r y B ar ber juryinstruction . In U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ar ber , 442 F. 2d 517 ( 3d C i r . 1971) , w e r equi r ed c o u rts to a d m o n ish ju rie s “ th a t th e w itn e ss ’ te stim o n ya s to id e n titym u st b e re c e iv e d w ith caut i on and s crut i ni zed w i t h car e” w hen i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyfai l s t o m eetanyfac t or i n the fol l ow i ng four - fac t ort es t : “( 1) i f the w i t nes s had the oppor tuni t yt o obs erve the acc us ed; ( 2) i f the w i t nes s i s pos i t i ve i n hi s i dent i fi cat i on; ( 3) i f the w i t nes s ’ i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyi s notw eake ned bypr i orfai l ur e t o i dent i fyorbypr i ori ncons i s t ent i dent i fi cat i on; and ( 4) i f, aft ercr os s - exami nat i on, hi s t es t i m onyr emai ns pos i t i ve andI n B a r b e r, w e had a gr eed w i t h appel l ant s ’ cont ent i on that“the ent angl ed 5 ci r cumst ance s of th[e] cas e compel l ed a mor e exa ct i ng char ge t o under s cor e the cr i t i cal n a tu re o f th e id e n tific a tio n iss u e — th a t th e c o m m in g lin g o f p a rticip a n ts a n d p a ss e rsb yin the vor t ex of a s udden mob sce ne r ender ed ar duous and cruci al the t as k of det erm i ni ng w ho di d w hatt o w hom . ” I d. a t 5 2 5 . 16 unqual i fi ed. ” I

d. at529. T he fa ct s i n B ar berhad pr om pt ed ouri m pos i t i on of a caut i onaryi ns t ruct i on. I n B ar ber , a gr oup of fi ft een men as s aul t ed tw o FB I agent s i n an at t ack thatl as t ed onl ya fe w m i nut es , and ey ew i t nes s es gave unc ert ai n and vac i l l at i ng te s tim o n y . I

d. at519, 524- 25. 5 M ar t i n cont ends s om e of the bank e m pl oy ees ’ ey ew i t nes s t es t i m onyfai l ed t o m eet the fi r s tt w o B ar berfac t or s and ac cor di ngl y , hi s tr i al couns el w as defi ci enti n not r eques t i ng t he B ar berj uryi nst ruct i on . A ttri al , defe nse cou nsel probed the em ploy ees’ “obs truct ed” vi ew s of the r obberand the s hor tper i od of t i m e, and s om e mi nor di s cr epanc i es abouthei ght , w ei ght , and s peci fi c des cr i pt i ons of the r obber ’ s hat . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notfi nd a s t r at egi c j us t i fi cat i on forcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o r eques ta B ar ber i ns truct i on, butr athers t at ed thati tm i ghtnothave gi ven the i ns t ruct i on i f as ked. B as ed on t he s tr ong evi dence , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d, “M art i n has nots how n t her e w oul d be a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yof a di ffe r entout come had t he j uryr ece i ved the B ar ber i ns truct i on. ” W e agr ee a nd fi nd M ar t i n has nots uffi ci ent l ydemonstr at ed that“butfor c o u n se l’s u n p ro f

e ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t” beca us e of the overw hel m i ng evi dence cons i s t i ng of the s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs , the arr es tphot ogr aphs , and the i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyof the bank e m pl oy ees , i ncl udi ng oneA d d iti o n a lly , w e n o te th a t th e trial c o u rt, em p lo y in g th e d isc re tio n w e e n d o rse d in 6 B ar ber , s uffi ci ent l yputt he j ur yon not i ce t o us e ca ut i on w hen eva l uat i ng the i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony : “W e r ecogni ze thatthe tr i al cour t s ar e i nves t ed w i t h w i de di s cr et i onarypow eri n t he s el ect i on of appr opr i at e l anguage i n j uryi ns t ruct i ons . . . [and] w e end orse the w i de lat i tud e t o b e acco rded t he tr i al cou rt s i n the ar ea of j uryi nst ruct i on s, [ w h ile re s p e c tin g th e p ro v id e d ] g u id e lin e s . . . .” 17 w ho had vi ew ed M art i n t w i ce w i t hi n a tw entym i nut e per i od. Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at 6 6 9 4 . C. M ar t i n’ s t r i al couns el w as noti neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o cal l tw o w i t nes s es t o t es t i fy a t tr ia l. T ri a l c o u n s e l h a s a d u ty to in v e s tig a te p o te n tia l w itn e s s e s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Kauf f m an , 1 0 9 F .3 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). B u t h e re , c o u n s e l s a tis f ie d th a t d u ty. W i tnes s es M ark E l and Ty r one Pol k, r es pect i vel yow nerand empl oy ee of the barber s hop w her e M art i n w or ked, w er e pr es entatM art i n’ s tr i al and pr epar ed t o t es t i fy . B uttr i al couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o cal l t hes e w i t nes s es w as w i t hi n t he r ange of compet ent re p re s e n ta tio n . See Str i ckland , 5 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0 . A s not ed, att he evi dent i aryhear i ng befor e the D i s t r i ctC our ton § 2255 habea s r evi ew , M art i n di d notcal l hi s t r i al couns el t o pr es entt es t i m ony , nordi d he off erany otherevi dence t o r ebutt he s t r at egi c pr es um pt i on. A ccor di ngl y , M art i n m ayonl yr ebut th e p re s u m p tio n b ys h o w in g n o s o u n d s tr a te g ye x is te d . H e h a s n o t d o n e s o h e re . M a rt in c o n te n d s E l a n d P o lk s h o u ld h a v e b e e n c a lle d to te s tif ya s a lib i w itn e s s e s . T he governm entcont ends i tw as s ound s t r at egynott o cal l thes e w i t nes s es beca us e of the18

w itn e s s e s ’ i n a b ility to p ro v id e a n a lib i f o r M a rt in . See Thom as v. V ar ner , 428 F. 3d 491, 500 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[I ] n oppos i ng a pet i t i oner ’ s at t empt t o di s pr ove the exi s t ence of a pos s i bl e s ound s t r at egy , i ti s ent i r el ypr operforthe [gove r nm ent ] t o engage i n r ecor dbas ed s pecul at i on as t o w hatcouns el ’ s s t r at egym i ghthave be en. ”) . B oth t he FB I and the D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia in v e stig a tiv e re p o rts o f E l an d P o lk d e m o n stra te n e ith e r w itn e s s c o u ld a c c o u n t f o r M a rt in ’s w h e re a b o u ts a ro u n d th e tim e o f th e ro b b e ry. Pol k not ed he c oul d not“pi npoi ntexac t l y ” M art i n’ s l ocat i on on t he dayi n ques t i on and E l to ld th e F B I t h a t M a rt in w o u ld c o m e a n d g o f ro m th e b a rb e rs h o p th ro u g h o u t th e d a y . N ei therw i t nes s pr ovi ded a s ui t abl e al i bi forM art i n, and M art i n di d notcal l ei t her pot ent i al w i t nes s t o t es t i fyatthe § 2255 habe as evi dent i aryhear i ng. A ccor di ngl y , tr i al cou nsel ’s perform ance w as not defi ci ent w i t h respectt o h i s deci si on no tt o call these w itn e ss e s to tes tifya s a lib i w itn e ss e s, n o r d o w e f in d th e o u tco m e u n d e rm in e d b yh is d e c is io n . I n addi t i on t o al i bi t es t i m ony , M art i n cont ends E l and Pol k w oul d have t es t i fi ed as t o M ar t i n’ s heal t h l i m i t at i ons , w hi ch coul d have r ai s ed doubt s as t o M art i n’ s phy s i cal abi l i tyt o comm i tt he r obbery . B utM art i n has pr ovi ded no evi dence t o r ebutthe Str i ckland

pr es um pt i on t hatt r i al “couns el ’ s conductm i ghthave be en partof a s ound s tr at egy . ” Thom as , 428 F. 3d at499 . E ven w i t houtthe Str i ckland pr es um pt i on, w e fi nd M a rt in w a s o b lig e d to p re s e n t e v id e n c e o n th e h e a lth is s u e , a n d h e h a s f a ile d to d o s o .19

A l though w e nee d nots pecul at e as t o t r i al couns el ’ s pr obabl e s t r at egy , i tw as not obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e fordefe ns e couns el nott o cal l Pol k t o t es t i fybeca us e Pol k had b e e n c o n v ic te d o f

m u ltip le f

e lo n ie s , w h ic h w e re a d m is s ib le f o r i m p e a c h m e n t p u rp o s e s . A d d it ion all y , the in v esti g ati v e re p o rt s co n tai n o n lym inim al i n fo rm ati o n reg ard ing E l’ s p ro b a b le te stim o n ya b o u t M a rtin ’s h e a lth p ro b lem s a s th e yre late to h is a b ili tyto c o m m it the ro b b ery . E l t o ld the F B I i n v esti g ator tha t M arti n h ad b ee n h o sp it ali ze d w ith h ea rt p rob lem s fo r a w ee k an d h e told the d ef en se in v esti g ator tha t M arti n “h as a v eryb ad h ea rt and has had pr i ors ur geryfort hi s aff l i ct i on. ” Ther e w as no i ndi cat i on w hen M art i n had thes e hea l th pr obl ems. Fur t herm or e, E l t ol d t he FB I i nves t i gat or , “M art i n has a drug p ro b lem ,” w h ich c o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m iss ib le a s e v id e n c e o f m o tiv e . B e c a u se M a rtin d id notpr es entanyevi dence att he evi dent i aryhear i ng t o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on of an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e tr i al s t r at egy , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatM art i n has not m e t h is b u rd e n o n th is c la im . III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent , deny i ng M ar t i n’ s § 2255 pet i t i on. M c K e e , C irc u it Ju d g e , d iss e n tin g in p a rt. I agr ee thatM art i n has notes t abl i s hed thattr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve fornot r eques t i ng a cha r ge pur s uantt o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ar ber , 442 F. 2d 517 ( 3d C i r . 1971) , or notcal l i ng Pol k orE l t o t es t i fy . H ow ever , I di s agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t y ’ s concl us i on t hat20

defe ns e couns el w as noti neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e a pr etr i al m ot i on t o r es t r i ct D etec ti v e M aryS eife rt ’s t esti m o n yan d fo r i n ex p li ca b lyeli cit ing E d n a C o o k ’s i dent i fi cat i on dur i ng hi s cr os s - exami nat i on of Sei fert . A ccor di ngl y , I r es pect ful l ydi s s ent fr om Par tI I . A . of the maj or i t y ’ s opi ni on. I. D e sp ite th e o th e r e v id e n c e in th is c a se , itis e x c e e d in g lyd if f icu lt t o re v iew th is r ecor d w i thoutfocus i ng on a s i ngl e ques t i on: “I s R ober tM art i n t he per s on depi ct ed i n t he b a n k su rv e ill a n c e p h o to g ra p h (s) ? ” . T h e re is n o d o u b t th a t M a rtin lo o k s lik e th e p e rso n in th o se p h o to g ra p h s. H o w e v e r, af ter re p e a ted lyc o m p a rin g th o se p h o to g ra p h s w ith M ar t i n’ s arr es tphot o, I cont i nue t o w onderi f M art i n is the p ers on i n those ph otographs. It is o b v io u s f

ro m th is re c o rd th a t th e ju ry w a s s im ila rl ytr o u b le d . T h e m a jo ri ty ch a ra c te ri z e s th e e v id e n c e o f M a rt in ’s g u ilt a s “ s ig n if ic a n t,” “strong,” and “o verw helm i ng . ” M aj . O p. at5, 13 , and 16 . H ow ever, tho se char act er i zat i ons ar e underm i ned bythe appa r entdi ffi cul t ythe j uryhad i n concl udi ng t hat M ar t i n w as t he r obber . A l t hough t her e w er e thr ee e y ew i t nes s es i dent i fi cat i ons , and n u m e ro u s b a n k s u rv e illa n c e p h o to g ra p h s , th e re w a s n o c o rr o b o ra tin g p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e . M oreove r, t he q uali t yof the ph otographs and the st rengt h o f t he ey ew i t ness i dent i fi cat i ons i s a fa rcryfr om t he “s t r ong, ” “s i gni fi cant , ” or“overw hel m i ng” evi dence of gui l tthatt he maj or i t ycl ai m s . T he maj or i ty ’ s char act er i zat i on of the evi dence i gnor es21

th e p o o r q u a lityo f

th e b a n k su rv e ill a n c e p h o to g ra p h s, a s w e ll as th e d a n g e rs e n d e m ic to ey ew i tnes s i dent i fi cat i ons . A s J us t i ce Bre nnan expl ai ned fourdeca des ago:

[ I]id e n tific a tio n e v id e n c e is p e c u liarlyrid d led w ith in n u m e ra b le d a n g e rs a n d v a ria b le f

a c to rs w h ich m ig h t se rio u sly , ev e n c ru c ially , d e ro g a te fr om a fa i rt r i al . T he vaga r i es of ey ew i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on ar e w el l - know n; th e a n n a ls o f

c ri m in a l la w a re ri f

e w ith in s ta n c e s o f

m is ta k e n id e n tif

ic a tio n . M r . J us t i ce Fr ankfurt eronce s ai d: ‘ W hati s the w or t h of i dent i fi cat i on tes tim o n ye v e n w h e n u n c o n tra d icte d ? T h e id e n tific a tio n o f stra n g e rs is pr overbi al l yunt rus t w or t hy . T he haz ar ds of s uch t es t i m onyar e es t abl i s hed bya form i dabl e numberof i ns t ance s i n t he r ecor ds of Engl i s h and A m e ri c a n tr ia ls .’ U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ade , 3 8 8 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 2 8 (1 9 6 7 ) ( q u o tin g F e lix F ra n k f u rt e r, The C as e of Sa c c o a n d

V a n ze tti3 0 (19 2 7 )). T h is r o b b erylast ed less than o n e m inu te, an d the ro b b er’s fac e w as obs cur ed form uch of thatbr i ef i nt erval . M or eover , comm on s ens e s ugges t s t hat th e te lle rs w e re d is tr a c te d b yth e p re s e n c e o f a s a w e d -o f

f s h o tg u n . M yc o llea g u e s s tre ss th a t o v e r e ig h tysu rv e ill a n c e p h o to g ra p h s w e re e n ter e d in to e v id e n c e . See M a

j. O p . at 3 . H o w e v e r, th e v a st m a jo rityo f th o se p h o to g ra p h s a re u tterly u se les s. T w e n ty -f

iv e o f th e m e ith e r d o n o t sh o w th e ro b b e r a t all, o r sh o w h im o n ly fai nt l yi n the di s t ance w i t h no di s cernabl e fe atur es exce ptforhi s s w eat s hi r tand cap. S e v e n o f th e re m a in in g p h o to g ra p h s s h o w o n ly th e s e c u ri ty g u a rd ru n n in g f ro m th e b a n k . F iv e o f th e p h o to g ra p h s d o sh o w th e f ro n t o f th e ro b b e r f

ro m re c o g n iza b le r a n g e , b u t h is fac e i s turned fr om t he ca m er a and/ orobs cur ed byhi s cap. T hr ee c l ear l ys how hi m fr om the fr ont , butt oo farfr om t he ca m er a t o cl ear l ys how the r obber ’ s fac e. O nl ytw o of the phot ogr aphs s how t he r obber ’ s fac e w i t h s om e cl ar i t y , and of thos e, onl yone i s s harp and22

cl ear. I as sum e t hat i s the si ng l e picture m ycoll eagu es r efer t o as “ a s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph of the r obberl eavi ng t he bank . . . ” . M aj . O p. at3 ( emphasi s added) . T hat s i ngl e phot ogr aph i s “cl earand def i ni t e. ” See M aj . O p. at14. I ti s al s o i nconcl us i ve. T hus , t he governm ent ’ s evi dence agai ns tM art i n cons i s t ed of hi s appea r ance at tr i al , a s i ngl e s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph, the t es t i m onyof thr ee ba nk empl oy ees , and the te s tim o n yo f

D e te c tiv e S e if

e rt , th e a rr e s tin g o f

f ic e r. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, defe ns e couns el hi ghl i ght ed the di s cr epanc i es i n t he bank e m p lo y e e s’ d e sc rip tio n s o f th e ro b b e r. O n e telle r d e sc rib e d th e ro b b e r a s a B lac k m a le w i th “s cr aggl y ” fa ci al hai r , “thi n”— w ei ghi ng as l i t t l e as 130 pounds , a l i t t l e t al l erthan 5’ 6”, and w ear i ng a bl ue, zi p- fr ontj acke tand a gr een c ap; anothert el l erdes cr i bed the r obberas a br ow n- compl exi oned mal e w i t h a moust ache and s cr aggl ybear d, w ei ghi ng as m uch as 180 pounds , ar ound 5’ 8” t al l , and w ear i ng a bl ue orbl ack ba s ebal l cap; and the thi r d bank empl oy ee de s cr i bed the r obberas a B l ack mal e, of “medi um hei ght ” and “medi um bui l d, ” aboutt hi r t yt o for t yy ear s ol d, and w ear i ng a cap. M art i n cert ai nl ydoes f it th o se g e n e ra l d e sc rip tio n s; s o d o m a n yo th e r m e d iu m -c o m p lex io n e d B lac k m a les w ith s o me f a c i a l h a i rwh o a r e o f

a v e r a g e b u i l d , a v e r a g e we i g h t , a n d a v e r a g e h e i g h t . By d e f in itio n , m o s t p e o p le a re o f “ a v e ra g e ” p ro p o rt io n . A gai ns tt hi s backdr op, D et ect i ve Sei fertt es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on as foll ow s:23

Q : N ow , aft ert he r obberyi t s el f, di d y ou r ece i ve anyt hi ng connec t ed w i t h t h e r o b b e r y? A : Y es , I di d. Q : W hatdi d y ou r ece i ve? A : I r ece i ved a phot ogr aph, s ever al phot ogr aphs fr om the — fr om D e tec tiv e Jo se p h P a ss io o f o u r m a jo r c rim e s u n it, w h o w o rk s w ith the F B I, an d w an ted a p o ster. Q : N o w , I’m sh o w in g y o u w h a t’s b e e n m a rk e d a s G o v e rn m e n t E x h ib it 6, and as k y ou— I ’ l l as k y ou w hetherthi s i s s i m i l art o t he phot ogr aphs t haty ou r ece i ved fr om D et ect i ve Pas s i o. A : Y e s , it is . . . . Q : N ow , di r ect i ng y ourat t ent i on t o appr oxi m at el yM ar ch 25, 1998, w e r e yo u o n d u t y t h a td a y? A : Y es, I w as. Q : B yt hatt i m e, had y ou s een thi s phot ogr aph once orm or e than once ? A : M o re th a n o n c e . . . . Q : A nd w er e y ou fami l i arw i t h t hatphot ogr aph bythen? A : Y es, I w as. Q : O n t h a td a y, d i d yo u a r r e s ta n yb o d y? A : Y es , I di d. Q : W h o d id y o u a rre st? A : I arr es t ed the def endant , M r . M art i n. Q: W h e r e d i d y o u a r r e s th i m? A : I ns i de the barber s hop at2125 R i dge A venue i n Phi l adel phi a. Q : A nd had y ou gone ther e hopi ng thathe w oul d be ther e? A : Y es. Q : W hyw er e y ou l ooki ng fora per s on m at chi ng thi s phot ogr aph? A : T o a rr e s t h im f

o r b a n k ro b b e ry. . . . Q : W hen y ou w enti nt o t he barber s hop, w as ther e more than one pe r s on i ns i de oronl yone per s on? A : T her e w as m or e than one. Q : A n d y o u a rre ste d th is d e f e n d a n t?24

A : Y es , I di d. Q : A g a in , w h a t d id y o u a rre st h im f o r, as o p p o se d to so m e b o d ye lse in t he barber s hop? A : I r ecog nized hi m as bei ng the p ers on i n thi s pho t og raph, w hich i s a su rve il lanc e p h o to tak en the d ayo f th e ro b b eryo f th e b an k rob b er. Supp. app. at157- 58. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M art i n’ s couns el el i ci t ed the fol l ow i ng fr om D e tec tiv e S e if

e rt: Q : O kay . A nd y ou r ece i ved i nform at i on thatday , as y ou i ndi cat ed by i ndi cat i ng y ou had the name R ob fr om a w om an named E dna C ook, is th a t co rre c t? A : T h at i s co rrect, sir . Q : O k ay . A n d E d n a C o o k h ad see n that p h o tog rap h that y o u h av e o r a copyof thatphot ogr aph thaty ou have, and had i ndi cat ed t o y ou that s h e t h o u g h tt h a tw a s R o b , i s th a tf a i rt o s a y? A : T h a t’s c o rre c t. Q : A n d so arm ed w ith that inf o rm ati o n , y o u w en t t o a loc ati o n w h ere E d n a C o o k sa id th a t th is p e rso n R o b w a s, m yc lien t, an d w e n t in t her e and y ou found hi m i ns i de, and t odayy ou’ r e i ndi cat i ng thaty ou t hi nk t hatt he i ndi vi dual pi ctur ed i n t hatphot ogr aph i s m ycl i ent , R ob M a r t i n , i s t h a tf

a i rt o s a y? A: I ti s h i m. Q : W el l , i ti s hi m ? H ow do y ou — did y ou — do y ou hav e fi ng erpr i nts

— A: W e l l , i tl o o k s l i k e h i m. Q : — fr om t he bank? A: I tl o o k s l i k e h i m. Q : I tl ooks l i ke hi m . T hank y ou.B ru e g g e sta ted o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t th e re m u st b e o v e rw h e lm in g sim ilarityto 7 m a k e a p o sitiv e id e n tific a tio n . H e re , h e sa id th a t af ter c o m p a rin g th e p ictu re s o f M a rtin to the s ur vei l l ance - vi deo foot age a nd phot os t aken f r om the bank he w as unabl e t o concl ude that M arti n w as th e b an k rob b er d ep ict ed in the su rve il lanc e im ag es. I co n ce d e, ho w ev er, thatB ruegge a l s o s t at ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thathe w as cl os e t o r eac hi ng that concl us i on. 25 Supp. app. at160- 61. T hus , defe ns e couns el as ked ques t i ons thatnotonl yal l ow ed r ei nfor ced Sei fert ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of M art i n, i tal s o el i ci t ed the out - of- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of Edna C ook. I n hi s cas e, M ar t i n cal l ed R i char d V or derB ruegge, an expe r ti n t he fi el d of phot ogr aphi c i dent i fi cat i on. B ruegge t es t i fi ed thathe r ece i ved copi es of the bank s ur vei l l ance phot os , vi deo foot age f r om the bank’ s s ur vei l l ance t ape, and pi ctur es of M ar t i n i n or dert o compar e M ar t i n’ s fac e t o t he r obber . B ruegge e xpl ai ned that , w hen a ttem p tin g to m a k e a n id e n tific a tio n f ro m p h o to g ra p h s h e c o m p a re s s c a rs, f re c k le patt erns , t he det ai l s of a pe r s on’ s earpatt ern, s hape of the ey es , s hape of

the nos e, cr eas es and l i nes on t he per s on’ s fac e, bl emi s hes on t he fa ce, and over al l ears hape. H e ca n r eac h a n yo n e o f

th re e c o n c lu sio n s: h e c a n p o sitiv e lyid e n tifyth e su sp e c t, elim in a te th e su sp e c t, ornotbe abl e t o r eac h anyconcl us i on. A ft ercompar i ng phot ogr aphs of M art i n t o t he b a n k su rv e ill a n c e p h o to g ra p h s, h e w a s n o t ab le to tell if M a rtin is th e p e rso n d e p icte d in the surveil l ance p ho t og raphs. 7 D u rin g trial, th e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re q u e st to h a v e M a rtin rem o v e h is ey eg lasses, pu t on a c ap , w alk to the lec tern in f ron t of the ju ryan d turn26

ar ound. T he bas ebal l cap he puton w as emboss ed w i t h a Phi l adel phi a Eagl es l ogo, as w a s th e h a t w o rn b yth e ro b b e r. T he courtt ol d t he j ur yt hatt he cap “ha[ d] been pur chas ed as a pr op bythe [g] overnm entforpurpos es of thi s cas e. ” Supp. app. vol . I I , at254. T he governm enthad tw o c a p s a v a ilab le a t trial: o n e b e a rin g a lo g o o f th e P h ilad e lp h ia E a g les , the o th e r w ith no l ogo. I ti s s i gni fi cantt hatnone of the bank e m pl oy ees w ho t es t i fi ed s ai d t hatthe rob b er’s ca p h ad an ylog o o n it . T h e g o v ern m en t nev erthe less p resse d the c o u rtto req u ir e M a rtin to w e a r th e c a p w ith th e E a g les lo g o , arg u in g : “it w ill b e b e n e f icia l to th e ju ryto s ee [ M ar t i n] i n s om ethi ng t hati s as cl os e as pos s i bl e t o w hatthe bank r obberw or e. ” I d. at252. H ow ever , i f the j ur or s w er e ac tual l ycompar i ng M art i n’ s fac e t o t he fa ce i n t he su rv e ill a n c e p h o to s, h a v in g M a rtin w e a r th e E a g les c a p a s o p p o se d to a sim ilar c a p w ith no l ogo w as cert ai nl ynot“bene fi ci al t o t he j ury . ” I tw as , how ever , verybenef i ci al t o the go vernm ent’ s chanc es of h aving t he jur ors conclude t hat M art i n w as the p ers on i n those ph otographs. D isp layi n g th e d e f

e n d a n t to th e ju ryin th is m a n n e r is, o f c o u rse , n o rm a lly p e rm is s ib le . See H

ol tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 218 U . S. 245, 252 ( 1910) . H ow ever , the pr ocedur e w as undul ys ugges t i ve underthe ci r cumst ance s her e. M or eover , i f the evi dence fr om t he s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs and i dent i fy i ng w i t nes s es w as as s t r ong as t he governm entand mycol l eague s s ugges t , thi s demonstr at i on w oul d nothave be en nece s s ary . Y et , i tw as notonl ynece s s ary , i thad t o be r epea t ed.27

D ur i ng del i ber at i ons , t he j ur yas ked t o s ee M art i n once a gai n w ear i ng the cap. T he c o u r tg r a n t e d t h e j u r y ’ s r e q u e s ta n d i n s t ru c t e d M a r t i n t o p u tth e c a p o n , a n d p u l l i td o wn cl os e t o hi s ey es s o t hathe w oul d appea rbefor e the j uryw ear i ng the ca p t he s ame w ayt he ro b b e r i s d e p ic te d w e a ri n g a n id e n tic a l c a p in th e s u rv e illa n c e p h o to g ra p h s . T he j ur or s had tw o day s dur i ng the cour s e of thi s tr i al t o obs erve M art i n. T hey had eve ryoppor tuni t yt o compar e hi s fac e w i t h t hatof the purpor t edl y“cl ear ” and “def i ni t e” i m ages , i n t he numer ous bank s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs . Y et , atperhaps the m o st i m p o rt an t m o m en t of the tri al, M arti n h ad to p u t on a c ap iden ti ca l t o the ro b b er’s and pul l i tdow n cl os e t o hi s ey es befor e the j urycoul d agr ee on a n i dent i fi cat i on. N ot onl ydi d thi s i ncr eas e the l i kel i hood of a mi s i dent i fi cat i on bas ed upon the s i m i l ar i t yof the cap a nd gener al appea r ance , i tobs cur ed M art i n’ s fac e. II. I n or dert o es t abl i s h i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , M art i n m us tes t abl i s h t hat couns el ’ s eff

or t s fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , and thatthe d e re lic tio n p re

ju d ic e d h im . Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . We pr es um e, how ever , t hat“couns el ’ s conductm i ghthave be en partof a s ound s t r at egy . ” Thom as v. V

ar ner , 428 F. 3d 491, 500 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he pr es um pt i on i s r ebut t ed by “s how i ng ei t hert hatt he conduc tw as not , i n fac t , partof a s t r at egyorbys how i ng thatt he s tr at egyempl oy ed w as nots ound. ” Id . W h e re , as h e re , “th e re c o rd d o e s n o t ex p licitly di s cl os e tr i al couns el ’ s actual s t r at egyorl ack ther eof . . . the pr es um pt i on [of s oundD ur i ng t he hea r i ng of M art i n’ s habea s pet i t i on, M art i n di d notas k couns el w hyhe 8 fai l ed t o fi l e a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o l i m i tD et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onyorw hyhe el i ci t ed th e te s tim o n yre g a rd in g C o o k ’s o u t- o f -c o u rt id e n tif

ic a tio n . 28 s tr at egy ] m ayonl ybe r ebut t ed thr ough a s how i ng thatno s ound s t r at egypos i t ed bythe [ g o v e rn m e n t] c o u ld h a v e s u p p o rt e d th e c o n d u c t.” Id . 8 A. M ar t i n fi r s tar gues t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e a mot i on in l i m i ne t o pr ecl ude D et ect i ve Sei fertfr om offe r i ng a l ayopi ni on pur s uantt o Fed. R . E vi d. 7 0 1 . T h e m a

jo ritya g re e s w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c laim th a t D e tec tiv e S e if e rt o n ly t es t i fi ed t o s how the ci r cumst ance s l eadi ng up t o M art i n’ s arr es t , and theyther efor e r ej ect M ar t i n’ s al l egat i on of i neff ect i venes s beca us e bac kgr ound evi dence i s us ual l yadmi s s i bl e. A ccor di ng t o t he governm ent , abs entSei fert ’ s expl anat i on of w hyM art i n w as arr es t ed, th e j u ry m i g h th a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a ti th a d n o tb e e n t o l d th e w h o l e s t o r y. A lth o u g h I w o u ld nor m al l yagr ee w i t h t hi s cont ent i on, I can notagr ee he r e bec aus e the di s put ed t es t i m ony w as notoffe r ed forbackgr ound. I tw as offe r ed t o s how thatD et ect i ve Sei ferti dent i fi ed M a rtin a s th e ro b b e r. In f a c t, th e g o v e rn m e n t u n d e rm in e s its o w n a rg u m e n t b yits su b tle con cessi on t hat D et ect i ve S ei fert ’s t est i m on y“w as not the m ostprobati ve aspe ctof [ i t s] pr oof . ” G ov’ tB r . 30 n. 3 ( emphasi s added) . E vi dence offe r ed onl yforbackgr ound w oul d har dl ycons t i tut e a “ pr obat i ve as pectof [the governm ent ’ s ] pr oof. ”In d e e d , the typ e o f b a c k g ro u n d p ro v id e d b yD e tec tiv e S e if e rt’s te stim o n yis 9 comm onl ys t i pul at ed t o pr eci s el ybeca us e ther e i s no di s put e abouthow the def endant came t o be arr es t ed. 29 M or eover , even i f the governm entonl yi nt ended the t es t i m onyas backgr ound, t he j ur yhad no w ayof know i ng of thatl i m i t at i on. R atherthan gi vi ng an appr opr i at e l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on, t he courtt ol d t he j ur y : “A nd y ou can c ons i derthatal s o, ther e w as ot her t es t i m ony— ot heri dent i f i cat i on t es t i m ony o ther tha n the e y e w itn esse s, o f c o u rse. T h ere w as the— part i cul ar l y , t he t es t i m onyof the arr es t i ng offi cer [] . ” Supp. app. at338 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h u s, an yatt em p t t o d ism iss Se ifert’ s testi m o n yas m ere

“ b a c k g ro u n d ” ig n o re s th e re c o rd . Fur t herm or e, i ns ofaras backgr ound evi dence w as appr opr i at e atal l , D et ect i ve Sei fertm er el yhad t o expl ai n t hats he w entt o t he barber s hop w her e M art i n w or ked beca us e s he had i nform at i on t hats om eone w ho w or ked ther e r es embl ed the per s on depi ct ed i n t he s ur vei l l ance phot os . T hatw oul d notonl yhave a ddr es s ed the governm ent ’ s conce r ns aboutappar entgaps i n i t s cas e, i tw oul d have ha d t he addi t i onal vi r tue of be i ng a more acc ur at e ac countof w hathappene d. I tw oul d have done that w i thoutal l ow i ng Sei fertt o offe rheropi ni on thatM art i n i s the per s on i n t he s ur vei l l ance p h o to s. T h is w o u ld a lso h a v e a v o id e d th e tain t o f a llo w in g D e tec tiv e S e f e rt to i m pr oper l yoffe rherl ayopi ni on t hatM art i n w as the per s on i n t he s ur vei l l ance ph otographs. 9 B.T he thi r d pr ong of the t es tforadmi s s i bi l i t yunderR ul e 701, thatthe t es t i m onynotbe 10 “ b a se d o n sc ien tific , tec h n ica l, or o th e r sp e c ializ e d k n o w led g e w ith in th e sc o p e o f R u le 702, ” i s cl ear l ys at i s fi ed i n t hi s cas e. Fed. R . E vi d. 701. 30 F ed. R . E vid. 70 1 p rovi des: I f the w i t nes s i s nott es t i fy i ng as an expe r t , the w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyi n t he form of opi ni ons ori nfer ence s i s l i m i t ed t o t hos e opi ni ons ori nfer ence s w hi ch ar e ( a) r at i onal l ybas ed on the per cept i on of the w i t nes s , ( b) hel pful t o a cl earunder s t andi ng of the w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyorthe det erm i nat i on of a fac ti n i s s ue, and ( c) notbas ed on s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal , orot hers peci al i zed know l edge w i t hi n t he s cope of R ul e 702. Fed. R . E vi d. 701. A l though D et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s opi ni on thatthe s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs ar e pi ctur es o f M a rt in w a s ra tio n a lly b a s e d o n h e r p e rc e p tio n s , it w a s a n yth in g b u t “ h e lp f u l.” 10 D et ect i ve Sei fertw as no m or e qual i fi ed t o compar e M art i n t o t he i ndi vi dual i n t he s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs t han the j ur or s . “[W ] her everi nfer ence s and conc l us i ons can be d ra w n b yth e ju rya s w e ll as th e w itn e ss , the w itn e ss is s u p e rf lu o u s; . . . a lay op in io n is r ece i ved bec aus e and w heneve rfac t s cannotbe s o t ol d as t o m ake the j uryas abl e as [the w i tnes s ] t o dr aw t he i nfer ence . ” 7 W i gm or e on Evi dence § 1917. 8, at10 ( C hadbourne rev . 1 9 7 8 ). I n U nited S tates v. L aP i erre , 998 F. 2d 1460 ( 9th C i r . 1993) , an i nves t i gat i ng offi cer i nform ed the j ur yof hi s opi ni on t hatL aPi err e w as the per s on depi ct ed i n s ever al bank su rve il lanc e p h o tog rap h s. O n ap p ea l, the C o u rto f A p p ea ls r ev erse d the c o n v ict ion in p art b e c a u se th e in v e stig a tin g o f f ice r’s tes tim o n yw a s n o t h e lp f u l an d th e re f

o re in a d m iss ib leT he maj or i t ys t at es t hat“[p] ol i ce of fi cer s m aycompl et e the s t oryof the cha r ged 11 o f f e n se , ab se n t p re

ju d ice o r in a d m iss ib ili ty .” M a j. O p . at 1 1 . T h a t tes tim o n yis c e rta in ly re lev a n t d u rin g a su p p re ss io n h e a rin g f o r p u rp o se s o f

e sta b lish in g p ro b a b le c a u se to arr es t , and thati s t he cont extt he maj or i t yr efe r s t o. H ow ever , i ti s notperm i s s i bl e under R ul e 701 forpol i ce of

fi cer s t o offe ri dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onybys tuffi ng i ti nt o t he Troj an

31 underR ul e 701. “The j ur y. . . w as abl e t o vi ew the s ur vei l l ance phot os . . . and make an i ndepende ntdet erm i nat i on w hetheri tbel i eved thatthe i ndi vi dual pi ctur ed i n t he phot os w as i n fac t[the def

endant ] . ” Id . at1465. T hus , the off i cer ’ s opi ni on t es t i m ony“r an the r i s k of i nvadi ng t he pr ovi nce of t he j uryand unfa i r l ypr ej udi ci ng [the def endant ] . ” I

d. T he courtconcl uded thatR ul e 701 l i m i t s a l ayw i t nes s ’ s opi ni on r egar di ng i dent i fi cat i on t o s i tuat i ons w her e “the w i t nes s has had s ubs t ant i al and s us t ai ned cont act w ith th e p e rso n in th e p h o to g ra p h ” o r “ th e d e f e n d a n t’s a p p e a ra n c e in th e p h o to g ra p h is di ffe r entfr om hi s appea r ance befor e the j uryand the w i t nes s i s fami l i arw i t h t he def endant as he appe ar s i n t he phot ogr aph. ” Id . I n “both [s i tuat i ons ] ther e i s r eas on t o bel i eve that the w i tnes s i s m or e l i kel yt o corr ect l yi dent i fythe per s on than i s the j ury . ” Id . T hu s, abs entci r cumst ance s notpr es enther e, “[l ] ayopi ni on t es t i m onyof the type gi ven by [Sei fert ] i s of dubi ous val ue. ” Id . M ycol l eague s at t empt t o di s m i s s M art i n’ s r el i ance on L aP i erre , bys ugges t i ng t hat “t he co ntextw as di fferent , ” and stres si ng that there i s no “ir on cl ad rul e against i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyfr om an arr es t i ng offi cer . ” M aj . O p. at10. I agr ee thatR ul e 701 d o e s n o t c re a te a n ir o n c la d ru le a g a in s t a p o lic e o f f ic e r o f f e ri n g id e n tif

ic a tio n te s tim o n y . H ow ever , di s m i s s i ng L aP i erre on t hatbas i s i gnor es the court ’ s anal y s i s . T he es s ence of 11h o r s e o f

b a c k g r o u n d t e s t i m o n y. 32 L a P ierre’s hol di ng i s t hatno l ayw i t nes s , m ayoffe ran opi ni on i dent i fy i ng a def endant abs entpr i orcont actw i t h t he def endant , orot herci r cumst ance s thats ugges tthatthe w itn e ss h a s a b e tter b a sis to id e n tifyth e d e f e n d a n t th a n th e ju ry . T h e re is n o re a so n to c re a te a n e x c e p tio n f

o r t h e la yo p in io n o f

p o lic e o f

f ic e rs , a n d m yc o lle a g u e s o f f e r n o n e . I ndeed, gi ven the dange rt hatj ur or s m aygi ve a pol i ce of fi cer ’ s uni nform ed id e n tific a tio n m o re w e ig h t th a n o n e b a se d “ o n ly ” o n th e ir o w n u n tra in e d e y e s, it is part i cul ar l yi m por t antt o adher e t o t he l i m i t at i ons of R ul e 701 w hen the l ayopi ni on of i dent i fi cat i on i s offe r ed bya pol i ce of fi cer . L ayopi ni on t es t i m onyi dent i fy i ng a def endant fr om s ur vei l l ance phot os i s t hus onl yadmi s s i bl e “i f ther e i s s om e bas i s forconcl udi ng t hat th e w itn e ss is m o re lik e lyto c o rre c tlyid e n tifyth e d e f e n d a n t f ro m th e p h o to g ra p h th a n is the j ur y . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tow ns , 913 F. 2d 434, 445 ( 7th C i r . 1990) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v . Fa rn sw o rth , 7 2 9 F .2 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 0 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 )); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Jackm an , 48 F. 3d 1, 4- 5 ( 1s tC i r . 1995) ( col l ect i ng cas es and fi ndi ng s uch t es t i m onyadmi s s i bl e “a t l eas tw hen the w i t nes s pos s es s es s uffi ci ent l yr el evantfami l i ar i t yw i t h t he def endantt hat th e ju ryc a n n o t als o p o ss e ss , an d w h e n th e p h o to g ra p h s a re n o t eith e r so u n m ista k a b ly cl earors o hopel es s l yobs cur e thatthe w i t nes s i s no bet t er - s ui t ed than the j uryt o m ake the i dent i fi cat i on. ”) . H er e, B ruegge w as the onl yexpertqual i fi ed t o gi ve an opi ni on about M ar t i n’ s i dent i fi cat i on. H e w as notabl e t o i dent i fyM art i n, des pi t e hi s empi r i cal appr oach a n d s c i e n t i f

i c m e t h o d o l o g y.T he s oundnes s of thi s s t r at egym us tal s o have e s cape d defe ns e couns el beca us e he 12 neverar gued thatD et ect i ve Sei fert ’ s t es t i m onyw as underm i ned bec aus e s he coul d not i dent i fyM art i n w i thoutE dna C ook’ s hel p. 33 C. T he maj or i t yal s o concl udes thatdefe ns e couns el w as noti neff ect i ve forel i ci t i ng t es t i m onyaboutt he r ol e C ook pl ay ed i n M art i n’ s arr es tbeca us e el i ci t i ng thi s i nform at i on cou l d h ave b een p artof co un sel ’s t ri al strat egy . T he g ov ernm ent cont end s that defense c o u n se l as k e d D e tec tiv e S e if e rt a b o u t C o o k to e sta b lish th a t th e d e tec tiv e w a s n o t ab le to i dent i fyM art i n w i thoutC ook’ s hel p and ther ebyunderm i ne Sei fert ’ s i dent i fi cat i on of M a rtin . T h a t pos thoc expl anat i on s t r ai ns cr edul i t y . H ad Sei fertneverbeen a l l ow ed t o s ay thats he thoughtM art i n w as depi ct ed i n t he s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs , i tw oul d nothave b e e n “ n e c e s s a ry” to u s e C o o k to tr yto lim it th e im p a c t o f S e if e rt ’s id e n tif

ic a tio n . R athert han appr opr i at el ychi ppi ng aw ayatthe l ay er s of i dent i fi cat i on, couns el ad d ed tw o ad d it ion al l ay ers h im self b yeli cit ing S eife rt ’s op inion an d C o o k ’s ou t- o f-c o u rt id e n tif ic a tio n . I a m a ta l o s s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s o u n d n e s s o f a n yd e f e n s e s t r a t e g yth a two u l d a l l o w a p o li ce d etec ti v e to im p erm issi b lyiden ti fythe d ef en d an t, an d then eli citan o u t- o f-c o u rt i dent i fi cat i on fr om t he onl yper s on w ho knew M art i n per s onal l yt o underm i ne the det ect i ve’ s i nadmi s s i bl e i dent i fi cat i on. 1234

T h e b a n k e m p lo y e e s’ id e n tific a tio n s w e re b a se d o n o b se rv a tio n s d u rin g a h ig h ly s tr es s ful r obberyt hatl as t ed l es s t han one mi nut e, and af for ded an opportuni t yt o obs erve the robb er’ s face t hat w as subst anti al l yl ess than on e m i nu t e. M oreove r, com m on sense su g g e sts th a t f

e a r a n d th e m e n a c in g p re se n c e o f a sa w e d -o f

f sh o tg u n w e re f

o rm id a b le o b sta c les to th e telle rs’ a b ili tyto f o c u s o n th e ro b b e r’s f

a c e d u rin g th e f

e w se c o n d s th a t it w as notobs cur ed. T hatdi s t r act i on and the mi ni m al oppor tuni t yt o obs erve expl ai n w hy none of the t el l er s not i ced the l ar ge contr as t i ng eagl e pr om i nent l yembroi der ed on the fr ontof the r obber ’ s cap; a l ogo t hati s exce edi ngl ydi ffi cul tt o m i s s even i f one doe s not fol l ow pr ofes s i onal footbal l . T hus , i ti s nots urpr i s i ng thatthe j ur or s i ns i s t ed on compar i ng M art i n t o t he s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs themsel ves r atherthan r el yon t he t est i m on yof the ban k tel l ers . C ook i s di ffe r ent . C ook knew M art i n, and herout - of- cour ti dent i fi cat i on w as bas ed o n h er c asu al ob serv ati o n o f th e su rve il lanc e p h o tos. T h u s, b yall o w ing D etec ti v e S eife rt t o tel l t he juryt hat C oo k h ad ident i fi ed M art i n from tho se pho t os, cou nsel ’s cross e x a m in a tio n o f

S e if e rt f o rt if ie d th e in h e re n tly u n re lia b le id e n tif ic a tio n s o f

th e b a n k te lle rs . A c c o rd in g ly , d e f

e n se c o u n se l’s h a n d lin g o f D e tec tiv e S e if

e rt w a s n o t o n lyin e f

f e c tiv e , it w a s f o o l h a r d y. D. O f c o u rse, co u n sel’s m ist ak es d o n o t auto m ati ca ll yresu ltin reli ef u n d er Str i ckland . R athe r, M arti n m u st sho w “tha t th ere is a reas o n ab le pro b ab il itythat, b u t fo r co u n sel’s35

unpr ofes s i onal err or s , t he r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at694 . H ow ever , M art i n “nee d nots how thatcouns el ’ s defi ci entper form ance ‘m o re li k elythan n o t al tered the o u tcom e in th e c ase ’— rathe r, h e m u st sho w o n ly‘a pr obabi l i tys uffi ci entt o underm i ne conf i dence i n t he out come. ’ ” Jaco bs v. H orn , 395 F. 3d 92, 105 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 3 -9 4 )). T h a t sta n d a rd “ is n o t a s tr i ngentone. ” Jacobs , 395 F. 3d at105. M ycol l eague s concl ude that , gi ven the evi dence her e, M art i n w oul d have be en c o n v ic te d e v e n w ith o u t D e te c tiv e S e if e rt ’s te s tim o n yo n d ir e c t a n d c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . See M a j. O p . a t 1 3 . H o w e v e r, t h e re m a in in g e v id e n c e w a s n o t s u f f ic ie n tly “ c le a r a n d d e f

in ite ,” t o c o n v i n c e t h e j u r yo f

h i s g u i l tb e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b ta f t e ro b s e r v i n g h i m d u r i n g t wo day s of t es t i m ony . R ather , des pi t e the purpor t edl ycl earand def i ni t e s ur vei l l ance p h o to g ra p h s, th e telle rs’ id e n tific a tio n s, a n d tw o d a y s o f o b se rv a tio n , the ju rystill h a d to i nt erruptdel i ber at i ons t o have M art i n don t he bas ebal l cap i n t he mannerof the r obberfor a secon d ti m e. T he d ang ers i nh erenti n thi s procedu re her e shou l d b e ob vious. W e cl ear l ydo notknow w hatm ot i vat ed the j ur or s t o as k t o s ee M art i n w i t h t he ca p a se c o n d tim e . P e rh a p s th e yc o n c lu d e d th a t M a rtin w a s th e ro b b e r a f ter o b se rv in g h im d u rin g th e trial a n d c o m p a rin g h im to th e su rv e ill a n c e p h o to g ra p h s a n d m e re lyw a n ted to a s s u a g e a l i n g e r i n g d o u b to f o n e o f t h e j u r o r s . P e r h a p s s e e i n g M a rt i n th e s e c o n d t i m e o n l y o v erc am e su b stan ti al (an d “re aso n ab le”) d o u b ts w h en co m b ined w ith D etec ti v e S eife rt ’s l ayopi ni on and C ook’ s out - of- cour ti dent i fi cat i on. W e ar e l eftw onder i ng.36

Str i ckland

does notr equi r e M art i n t o s how that“butfor ” hi s at t orney ’ s err or , he w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v icte d . G iv e n th e sa n c tityo f ju ryd e lib e ra tio n s, th a t tes t co u ld n e v e r b e s a tis f

ie d . R a th e r, Str i ckland o n lyre q u ire s th a t M a rtin e sta b lish a re a so n a b le l i kel i hood t hathe w oul d nothave be en convi ct ed w i t houthi s at t orney ’ s defi ci ent per form ance . I t hi nk he has s at i s fi ed thatbur den. III . D esp it e m yco ll ea g u es’ c h ara cterizati o n o f th e e v iden ce , this rem ains a v ery d if f icu lt ca se . A s I s a id a t th e o u tse t, I h a v e sta re d a t th e o n lyu se f u l su rv e ill a n c e p h o to and compar ed i tt o M art i n’ s arr es tphot o overand overand overagai n. I can unde r s t and the j ur y ’ s di ffi cul t y . A s I not ed ea r l i er , ther e i s cl ear l ya r es embl ance . T hatr es embl ance h a s c a u se d m e a ltern a tin g d e g re e s o f d o u b t an d c e rta in tya s I h a v e c o m p a re d th e o n ly u se f u l su rv e ill a n c e p h o to g ra p h to M a rtin ’s a rre st p h o to g ra p h . I h a v e n o t b e e n a b le to cons i s t ent l yconcl ude thatt he s ur vei l l ance phot ogr aph i s a pi ctur e of M art i n, norhave I been a bl e t o cons i s t ent l yconcl ude thati ti s nota pi ctur e of hi m . O f cour s e, I di d nothave the adva nt age of

actual l ys eei ng M art i n i n per s on dur i ng tw o day s of tr i al . H ow ever , t hat di s t i nct i on w oul d have be en more convi nci ng i f the tr i al cour thad notm ade M art i n puton a c a p id e n tica l to th e ro b b e r’s a n d p u ll i t d o w n o v e r h is f a c e d u rin g d e lib e ra tio n s, a n d if th e ju ry h a d n o t f

o u n d it n e c e s s a ry to re p e a t th e p ro c e d u re . I r eal i ze thi s pr eci s e poi nti s n’ tar gued her e, butgi ven the i s s ues thatar e ar gued on appea l and the dange r s i nher enti n i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony , the j ury ’ s appar entexpr es s i onSee U ni t ed Stat es v. B r ow nl ee , 454 F. 3d 131, 142 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[M ] i s t aken 13 ey ew i tnes s i dent i fi cat i ons ar e r es pons i bl e form or e w r ongful convi ct i ons than al l ot her c a u s e s c o m b in e d .” ) ( Q u o tin g A . D a n ie l Y a rm e y , E xpertT est i m ony: D oes E

yew i tness Mem or y Rese ar ch H

ave Probat i ve Val ue f

orthe C our t

s ?, 42 C anadi an Ps y chol ogy92, 93 (M a y2 0 0 1 )). T h a t co n c lu sio n is b a se d o n a stu d yo f 3 2 8 d e f e n d a n ts w h o w e re u lti m a tely exoner at ed bas ed on s ubs equent l yavai l abl e D N A t es t i ng. T he s tudyconcl uded that “ ‘[ E ]y e w itn e ss e v id e n c e p re se n ted f ro m w e ll m e a n in g a n d c o n f id e n t citiz e n s is h ig h ly per s uas i ve but , att he s ame t i m e, i s among t he l eas tr el i abl e f or m s of evi dence . ’” B r ow nl ee , 4 5 4 F . 3 d at 14 2 (bra ck ets an d it ali cs in o ri g inal). 37 of doubtdes pi t e thei roppor tuni t yt o compar e M art i n t o t he s ur vei l l ance phot os i s r el evant t o the prej ud i ce pron g o f M art i n’s Str i ckland c la im . I V. T he maj or i t yemphasi zes t hatthe s ecur i t yguar d’ s i dent i fi cat i on of M art i n “w as it self a b asis fo r th e jury ’s ve rdict. ” M aj. O p at 15 . Itclea rl yco u ld h av e b ee n . H o w ev er, as I have e xpl ai ned, i ti s obvi ous fr om thi s r ecor d t hatthe j urydi d notfi nd thatt es t i m ony as convi nci ng as m ycol l eague s do. M ycol l eague s s ugges tthatm yconce r ns aboutthe j ur y ’ s appar enthes i t ancyand doubt s ar e “s pecul at i ve. ” M aj . O p. at14. I a d mi tth a tmy an aly sis i n v o lves so m e d eg ree o f sp ec u lat ion . H o w ev er, I su b m itthat, sinc e jury del i ber at i ons ar e nec es s ar i l ys hr ouded i n s ecr ecy , s om e s pecul at i on i s endemi c i n any i nqui ryundert he pr ej udi ce pr ong of Str i ckland . G i ven thi s r ecor d and couns el ’ s defi ci ent per form ance , t he s pecul at i on i s notonl yw arr ant ed, i ti s compel l ed. M or eover , forr eas ons I ha v e a lr ea d yex p lai n ed , I fe ar tha t th e v erd ictis al so sp ec u lat ive a n d that the ju ry ’s s pecul at i on w as r es ol ved byt he out - of- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of Edna C ook, and the opi ni on of D et ect i ve Sei fertt hatdefe ns e couns el s houl d have e xcl uded underR ul e 701. 1338

I hope thatI am w r ong and thatm ycol l eague s ar e corr ect . I hope thatM art i n w as convi ct ed bec aus e he l ooks s o m uch l i ke the r obberthatthe j ur or s w er e convi nced be y ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hathe is t he r obber ; and thathe w as notconvi ct ed bec aus e he re s e m b le s th e ro b b e r w h e n w e a ri n g a n id e n tic a l c a p p u lle d d o w n to o b s c u re h is f a c e . H ow ever , beca us e the j ur yno doubtcons i der ed Edna C ook’ s out - of- cour ti dent i fi cat i on, as w el l as Si efe r t ’ s opi ni on, t hi s ver di cti ns pi r es m or e s pecul at i on than conf i dence . Si nce that evi den ce w as onlyadm i t t ed b ecause o f def ense co un sel ’s i neff

ect i ven ess, I m ust re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t.