T h e H on or abl e Joh n G

. H ey bu r n I I , U n i t ed St at es Chi ef D i s t r i ct J u dg e f

or t h e W es t er n D i s t r i ct of * K ent ucky, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0350n.06 F iled: May 18, 2007 No. 06-3833 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

MA HA D H . SA MA TA R, ) Plaintif f - Appellant , ) ) v. ) On Appe al from the ) Unit e d St a te s D ist

ri c t Co ur t MA RK CL ARRI DG E, War de n ) f or the Southe rn

Di str ic t of

Oh io Defendant - Appellee . ) )

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH an d GIBBONS, Circuit Jud ges; HEYBURN, Chief District * Judge J OHN G. H EYB URN I I , Chief Dis trict J udg e. This is an appeal of the denial of a petition for ha beas c orpus. Maha d H. Samatar was found guilty

in Ohio state cour t of possession of cathinone, a

Schedule I

controlled substanc e under Ohio law. Samatar

was in possession of a shr ub known as khat, which has be en known to contain the controlled substanc es cathinone and cathine. At trial, the state’ s expert reve aled that upon testing of the pl ant m ater ial, he discove red substantial amounts of ca t h i n o n e b ut no cathine. Such a test result appe ars sc ientifically improbable, a

nd Samatar ha s claimed that the state ’s sole test establishing an ele ment of his crime is invalid, and he

wa s d e nie d e ff

e c ti ve ass ist anc e of

c ouns e l. A ft e r e xha

us tin g a pp e a ls a nd re me die s in

state c ourt , Samatar f iled his feder al habe as cor pus petition. He now appea ls the di smissal of that petition. ForNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 2

S a m a ta r te stif ie d tha t he im m igr a te d in 1 9 9 8 fro m S o m a lia, w h e re he c la im s it is a c u ltura l t ra d iti o n to 1 che w k hat at weddi ng s . H e s ai d t hat t he kh at at i s s ue was s ent t o t he U ni t ed St at es by a r es i dent i n London na med

“ Abdi d” f

or u s e at a Soma l i w eddi n g c er emon y . Ac cor di n g t o Sa mat ar , Abdi d h ad t ol d h i m t h e con t r ol n u mber of t he packa ge but not t he name on t he packa ge, an d when t he packa ge was broug ht t o hi m he n ot i ced t he name w r i t t en o n it a n d sign e d the lo g w ith tha t na m e . H e furth e r te stif ie d tha t t h e kh a t wa s h a rv e ste d in K e n ya a n d sh ip p e d to Londo n by ai r pl ane , probabl y af t er a del ay of

s eve r al day s . Samat ar f ur t her cl ai med t hat t her e i s no s t i mul ant ef f ect i n k hat , i t i s not i l l ega l i n Somal i a, he ha d nev er he ar d of ca t hi none, an d he w as un awar e t hat kh at cont ai ned cat hi none. H e a gr eed t hat kh at i s s ol d i n t he C ol umbus Som al i comm un i t y f or $20 t o $4 0 a bundl e. the re a so ns e xpla ine d b e low , w e wi ll a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. On F e br ua ry 15 , 20 01 , M aha d H . Samatar a rr ive d at a F e de ra l E xpre ss l oc a tio n in Col umb us , Ohi o , an d p r e s e n te d

th e tr a c k in g nu mb e r

f o r a p a c k a g e . U nb e kn o w n s t t o Samata r , th e Co lumb us police depa

rtment had be en ale rted to the arr ival of the packa g e, from which brownish-red stems of veg etation wer e protruding . Be lieving the veg etation t o be khat ( pronounce d “cot” ), the police had

arr ang e d f

or the pa c ka g e to b e pic ke d u p und e r c on tr oll e d c on dit ion s. Samatar s ig ne d the nam e

“ JohnGo odman” on the sig natur e re c or d an d took po sse ssi on of the pa c ka g e . H e wa s su

bs e qu e ntl y

arr ested, a nd the pac kag e wa s seized and submitted for ana ly sis to the laboratory at the Ohio B urea

u of Criminal I nvestig ation (“B CI ”). Khat, or “catha edulis ,” is a shrub which grow s wild and as a cash c rop in Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, a nd other c ountries in Northea stern Af rica

. I ts le aves are chew ed or br ewe d into a tea, a nd 1 it is e sti mate d that a

pp ro ximate ly 60 to 70 pe rc e nt of Som a lis c he w or dr ink kh a t on a re g ula r b a sis

. Kh a t ha s b e e n k

no wn to c on ta in t

he ps y c ho a c tiv e c he mic a l c a thi no ne , a sti mul ant. Cathi no ne is listed a s a Schedule Icontrolled substanc e under Ohio law. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3719.41, Schedule I , (E)( 2). Khat also contains the less potent stimul ant, cathine, a Schedule I V controlledNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 3
substance unde r Ohio law. SeeOhio Rev.Code Ann. § 3719.41, Schedule I V, (D) (1). Gre g ory Kiddon, a for ensic scie ntist wit h over 20 year s of experienc e at B CI , conducte d a chemica l analy s i s o f t h e s eiz ed plant mater ial. Plant samples were remove d from the boxes on Fe bruar y 16, 2001, and fr ozen until t he che mical ana ly sis was perf ormed on J uly 24, 2001. Kiddon prepa red a repor t of his findings that was submi tted by the S tate int o evidenc e at trial. Acc ording to the repor

t, all sa mples wer e found to c ontain cathinone. K iddon further testified that he f

ound no cathine in a

ny of the samples. A. Samatar w as indicted by

the Fr anklin County

Gra nd J ury for two c ounts of Ag g ravated Possession of Drug s pursuant Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2925.11. Count Iof the indictment alleg ed t h a tS am a t ar

“ d i d kn o w i n g l y

o b t a i n , p o s s e s s , o r u s e a c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n c l u d e d i nS c h e d

u l e I, to wit: C athinone, commonly known as Khat, in an amount equal to or ex cee ding one hundre d times the bulk a mount a s define d in section 2925.01 of the Ohio Revised Code .” Count 2 was an ide ntical alleg ation in reg ards to ca thine. The State later di smissed the s econd count alleg ing possession of cathine. Samatar w aived jury

and wa s tried by the trial court. Def ense counsel attempted to impeach Kiddon’s testimony

with an ar

ticle issued by

the United States D ep ar t m en t o f He alth and Human Service s, entitled “B asis For The Rec ommendation For Control of Cathinone Into Schedule IOf The Controlled Subst ance s Act” ( “HHS Report” ). Kiddon ac knowledg ed that the a rticle wa s

a uth or itativ e . T he re po rt

e xpre sse d th e op ini on

that 10 0 g ra

ms o f f re shkh a t is e sti mate d to c on ta inNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 4

T he D ece mb er 14, 200 1, M ot i on f or N ew T r i al was f

i l ed j oi nt l y by Samat ar ’ s ori gi nal t r i al at t orn ey 2 S id n e y M o o re a n d ne w c o u n se l C a ro l W rig h t. 36 mgof c a thi no ne and 12 0 mg of c a thi ne , amo ng many oth e r ch e mic a ls. Ac c or din g to t he re po rt , within 72 hours of harve st, the natura lly occur ring cathinone r apidly

decompose s into cathine. The

re po rt fu rt he r s tate d th a t f

re shkh a t c on ta ins 10 0 ti me s mo re c a thi no ne tha n d ri e d k hat. Kiddon acknow ledg ed the fore g oing inf ormation containe d within the report. He testified that he had frozen t he plant materia l until the chemical analy sis could be per formed be cause he wa s

awa re that in the cathinone- to-cathine conver sion process, some of the pl ant’s phychotropic pote ncy was lost. When pres s ed ab o u t his finding that the sa mples he tested c ontained cathinone, but no cathine, Kiddon admitted that he was surprised by the results but rema ined firm in his conviction that his chemica l analy sis was corr ect. Spec ifically , Kiddon stated that he could not “ find any peaks that Icould identify

as cathine,” and r ejec ted def ense c ounsel’s sug g estion that he misidentified cathine

as cathinone. Followingtrial, the cour

t found Samatar guilty

of pos s es sing c athinone. In addition, the Court found that the amount possessed was ove r one hundr ed times the bulk amount, and Samata r

wa s se nte nc e d to a

mand a tor

y te n y e ars imp ri so nme nt.

B. Samatar timely filed a Motion for New Trial, claiming that the State’s expe rt ev i d en ce reg ardingthe “no ca t h i n e” finding was scie ntifically impossibl e and the result of fa ulty testing methodology

by Kiddon. Attache d to the motion was an a ffidavit of D r. Michae l J on Kell, MSChE

2 MD PhD , in

wh ic h h e c ha lle ng e d th e re su lt a nd me tho do logy of

Ki dd on ’s c he mic a l ana ly sis . A lsoNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 5

S a m a ta r c o m p la ins tha t his tria l co u n se l, G e o rg ia a tto rn e y S id n e y L . M o o re , Jr ., wa s c o n stitutio n a lly

3 ine ff e c tive . Inte re sting ly, M o o re , w h o w a s g ra n te d p ro ha c vic e sta tus in S a m a ta r’s O h io c a se , i s v e ry e x p e rie n c e d in t he def ens e of kh at poss es s i on ca s es , ha vi ng def ended s uch ca s es i n a t l eas t el eve n s t at es , i ncl udi ng : G eorg i a, K a n sa s, M a ine , M a ryla n d , M ic h iga n , N e w Y o rk , N o rth C a ro lina , O h io , T e n n e sse e , T e x a s, a n d V irg inia

. See St at e v . R o b le , N o . L -0 4 -1 3 7 4 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 0 5 1 0 1 a t *2 (O h io C t. A p p . Ja n u a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 ). In fac t, M o o re ha s su c c e ssfu lly re p re se n te d a p e tit io n e r-a p p e llan t b e fo re this C o u rt in a fed e ra l kh a t p o sse ssio n c a se . See U

. S. v. Ca s eer , 399 F. 3d 8 2 8 (6t h C i r. 20 0 5 ) ( co nvi ct i o n revers ed and remand ed f o r f urt her pro ceed i ngs)

. a tta c he d w a s a

se c on d a ff

ida vit fr om t ri a l c ouns e l, S idn e y

Mo or e . Mo or e state d that wh e n th e State dis mis se d th e fo ur

th d e g re e fe lony

po sse ssi on

of c a thi ne c ha

rg e , he belie ve d th e state wa s me re ly making a choic e to avoid issues of double je opardy

. He had been totally surprised by

the testimony of the State c hemist that he had found no c athine but ac tually tested for it. The trial court denied the Motion for NewTrial, and Samatar tim ely appea led t o the s tate appe llate cour t. The appe llate cour

t aff irmed the c onviction and sentenc e of S am at ar, and the Ohio Supreme Court de clined to ac cept jurisdiction. Whil e the direc t a

ppeal to the state appellate court wa s pending , Samatar, through counsel Wright, filed a

pet i t ion for postconviction re lief in the trial cour t pursuant Ohio Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2953.21, raising six claims of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The pe tition was supported by two 3 aff idavits; one from Attorney Richard Ke t ch am out lining how tria l counsel’s pe rfor mance was

unrea sonable a n d fell below prevailingprofe ssional norms and one f rom Dr. Alf

red Staubus outlining the proble ms with dist inguishingbetwee n cathinone and cathine, the inability to quantify the c he mic a ls a

nd the pr ob le ms o f u sin g a

g a s c hr omatogra

pha s w e ll a s w hat a ssi sta nc e he c ou ld have pr ovided trial counse l. Additional documentary support included ar

ticles about khat and the difficulty in disti ng uishing the c hemicals, a s well as the pr oblems with using a g as chr omatog raph to d ist inguis h th e c he mic a ls. Th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d th e pe tit ion , a

nd Samat ar, thr ou g h Wr ig ht,No. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 6

appea led the denia l. Th e ap pellate c ourt aff irmed the de nial of postconviction re lief. Samatar , throug h Wright, appe aled to the Ohio Supre me Court. The C o u rt d enied lea ve to appe al and dismiss ed the a

ppeal a s not involvi ng any substantial constituti onal question. On No ve mbe r 22 , 20 04 , Samatar, thr ou g h c ouns e l Wri g ht, fi le d the ins ta nt Pe tit ion fo r Wr it of Ha be a s Co rp us and

a Mo tio n f or Di sc ov e ry . Re sp on de nts fi le d r e sp on se s to bo th. Th e Ma g istrate J udg e issued an O pinion and Report and Recommendations recommendingthat the ac tion be dismiss ed, and that Petiti oner’ s reque st f or discovery

and evide ntiary

hear ing be denied. Samata r filed Objections, but the District Court issued an opinion and Or der A dopting a nd Affir ming the Report and Rec ommendations and dismissed the petition. Samatar, t hroug h counsel Wrig ht, filed a notice of

appea l and a motion fo r ce rt i fi cate of appe alability , which wa s g rante d by the District Court on May

16, 2006. II. W hen revi ewi ng the de nia l of a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s p ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 54 , th is Court c on sid e rs the dis tr ic t court ’s le g a l c on c lus ion s de novo

. Carter v. B e ll, 21 8 F .3 d 5 81 , 5 90 (6 th Cir. 2000). “F actua l deter minations are g ener ally

revie wed f

or cle ar e rror , ‘except whe re the district court ha s made fa ctual dete rminations based on its revie w of trial tra nscripts and other

court

rec ords.’” Dando v. Yukins , 4 6 1 F. 3 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 6 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Ma c k e yv . R us se ll , 148 Fe d. Ap p 'x 3 5 5, 359 (6th Cir. 2005)). “ I n such ca ses, bec ause no c redibility deter mination or findings of fa ct ar e re quired, fa ctual conc lusions are re viewed de novo .” Id. (c i t i n g W olfe v. Brigano , 232 F.3d 499, 501 ( 6th Cir. 2000)). In revie wing h ab ea s petitions, we aff ord a state court' s fac tualNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 7
deter minations a presumption of cor rec tness. But, they

may be re b u t t ed by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Biros v. Bagley , 422 F.3d 379, 386 ( 6th Cir. 2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e )(1) (providingthat “[i] n a proc eedinginstit uted by an application for a wr it of habea s corpus by a per s o n i n custody pursuant to the j udg ment of a State court, a deter mination of a fac tual issue made by a State cour

t sha ll b e p r e s u me d to b e c o r r e c t” )

. T h e d is tr ic t c o urt’ s d e c is io n s d e n yin g d is c o very and an evidentiar y hear ing a re r eviewe d under a

n abuse of

discretion standa

rd. Ab du s- Sa ma d v . B e ll , 420 F.3d 614, 626 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Samatar certified four issues on appe al: (1) whe ther he was de nied ef fec tive assistance of

c ouns e l, ( 2) wh e the r the e vid e nc e wa s ins uf fi c ie nt to su sta in his c on vic tio n, (3 ) whe the r t he a ff ida vit of Dr. Staubus may

be conside red in support of his c laim f or ineffe ctive assistance of counse l, and (4) whe ther he should be g rante d discovery or an e videntiary

hear ing. We w ill conside r eac h in turn. III

. Samatar c laims ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel beca use his attorney

failed to que stion the State’s che mist prior to trial reg arding his lab report, failed to submit into evidenc e any “substantive evidenc e” of

the chemica l c ompositi on of khat, fa iled to call an e x pert witness to discre dit the State’s chemist, and fa iled to reque st a continuanc e when he was surprised by the che mist’s testim ony

that the khat mater ial contained no c athine. I n s up po rt

of thi s c la im, Samatar p oints t o a n a ff idav it o f h is tri a l atto rn e y wh ic h s tate s in

re le va nt p art tha t Mo or e be lie ve d th a t th e “ c a thi ne ” c ha rg e ha d be e n dr op pe d be c a us e the state c ho se to go w ith the Schedule I substance rather than t he Schedule I V substance to avoid the problems ofNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 8 double jeopar dy . Moore sa y s that he wa s totally surprised by Kiddon’s testimony

that he had f

ound cathinone but no c athine in the plant samples. Samata r also re lie s on the aff

idavits of proposed expert witnesses Dr. Micha el Kell and D r. Alfr ed Staubus expressing the ir profe ssional opinions t hat the re sults of the BCI

test indicate a

mistaken testing me thodology

. A claim of ine ffe ctive assis t an ce of counsel c omprises two eleme nts: (1) the attorne y ’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt, falling below an objective standa rd of r easona

bleness; and, ( 2) the attorney ’s defic ient perf

ormanc e prejudice d the def endant. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). “ Be cause of the diff iculties inhere nt in making the evaluation, a court must indul g e a strong presu m p t i o n t h at counse l’s conduct f alls within the wide rang e of r easona ble profe ssional assistance ; that is, the defendant must overc ome t he presumption that, under the circ umstances, the challeng ed action might be considere d a trial strateg y .” Id. at 6 8 9

. “J u d i ci al s cr u t i n y o f aco un s el 's perf ormanc e must be hig hly

defe rential” and every eff ort must be made “to eliminate the distorting

e ff e c ts o f h ind sig ht, to r e c on str uc t th e c ir c ums tanc e s o f c ouns e l ' s c h a l l e n g e d c o n d uc t, a nd to e va luate the conduct from counsel' s perspe ctive at the time.” Bell v. Cone , 535 U.S. 685, 698 (2002) (c iting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689). A. To pr e va il o n th e de fi c ie nc y pr on g , a pe tit ion e r m

us t sh owthat c ouns e l’ s p e rf or manc e fe ll below an obje ctive standa rd of r easona

bleness. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688. Where c ounsel has failed to investig ate, his dec ision s will be deeme d rea sonable only to the extent that they

are supported by

rea sonable investig ation. Se e W igg ins v . S mi th , 539 U.S. 510, 533 ( 2003) (holdingthatNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 9
a dec ision not t o invest i gat e m u s t be dire ctly assessed f

or re asonable ness in all circ umstances)

. Som e c ourt s h ave he ld t hat th e duty to inv e sti g a te inc lud e s th e duty to c on su lt a

nd re ta in a ll

rea sonably

nece ssary

experts. See, e .g., Horsely v . State of Alabama , 45 F. 3d 14 86 , 1 49 4- 95 (1 1th Cir. 1995). The Ohio Court of Appea ls w as satisfied that Moore a dequate ly perf ormed such duties a

nd that his actions wer e par

t of a rea sonable trial strateg y . We a g ree with the Ohio court’s analy sis of Moore’ s trial perf

ormanc e. The fac t that defe nse counse l did not int ervie w the prose cution’s expert witness Kiddon may

be explained by

rea sonable trial tac tics. A pretr ial interview c ould al er t the wi tne ss t o p art ic ula

r l ine s o f qu est io ni ng fo r whic h h e c ou ld f ur the r p re pa

re be fo re tr ia l. T hu s, pr e tr ia l qu e sti on ing

c ou ld r ob a cros s-exami na tio n at tr ia l of

so me of its fo rc e . In f

a c t, d e fe ns e

c ouns e l th or ou g hly

c ro ss- e xami ne d Ki dd on on his “ no c athi ne ” fi nd ingus ingan a uth or itativ e art ic le on khat. Althoug h defe nse counse l asserte d in an af fi d av i t t h at he wa s “totally surprised” by

the expert’s testimony , his surprise at trial doe s not make his strateg y unrea sonable, and such hindsight would be inappr opriate unde r Strickland . 466 U.S. at 688. Moreove r, Moore ’s fa ilure to seek a continuance afte r the supposed surprise does not make defe nse ineff

ective. I n revie wing a cla im of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, courts should dec line second- g uessing an attorne y ' s trial strategy . State v. W illiams , 600 N.E.2d 298, 304 (Ohio Ct. App. 19 91 ). Th e de c isi on

wh e the r t o c a ll a

wi tne ss i s g e ne ra lly

a matte r o f t

ri a l st rat eg y

and , a bs e nt a showing of prejudice, the f ailure to c all a witness does not de prive a defe ndant of e ffe ctive assistanc e of counse l. Id. Fur

ther, the failure to call an expert and ins tead rely on cross-e x amination does notNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 10
constitute ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. State v. Hartman , 754 N .E.2d 1150, 1177 (Ohio 2001)

. I n f a c t, i n ma

ny c ri min a l c a se s tr ia l c ouns e l' s d e c isi on no t to se e k e xpe rt te sti mony

“ is unquestionably

tactica l beca

use such a

n expert might uncover evidenc e that further inculpates the defe ndant.” State v. Glove r , No. CA2001-12-102, 2002 WL 3 1647905 at *5 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 25 , 2 00 1)

. “Fur

the r, e ve n if

the wi sd om o f s uc h a

n a pp ro a c h is de bata

ble , ‘ de bata

ble tr ia l ta c tic s' do not c onstitut e ineffe ctive assistance of counse l.” Id. (q u o t i n g State v. Clayton , 402 N.E.2d 1189 (O hio 19 80 )) . We wi ll n ot s e c on d- g ue ss M oore’s tr ial ta c tic s in the se c ir c ums tanc e s. Hi s perf ormanc e mee ts an objective standa rd of reasona

bleness. His repr esentation of Samatar wa s not

c on sti tut ion a lly

de fi c ie nt. B. Nor did Moore’ s perf

ormanc e pre

judice Samatar . To satisfy the pre judice re quirement, a

n ineffe c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e c la im an t “ mu s t s h o w th a t t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b il it y th a t, b u t f

or counsel’s unpr ofessional e rror s, the result of the pr ocee d i n g wo u l dhave be en diffe rent. A

rea sonable proba

bilit y i s a p robability

sufficie nt to undermine conf idence in the outcome.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694. T h e r ec o rdd o es n o td em o n s t ra t e t h at Ki d d o n ’s fi n d i n g o f c at h i n o n e w as i n h er en t l y wr o n g. I ns te a d, a s r e c og nize d b y the state c ourt s, Ki dd on

c ou ld h ave le g iti mate ly fou nd c a thi no ne wh ile beingmistaken about cathine. The re cord doe s not d em o n s t rate that additional testimony by an expert such as Dr . Kell or Dr . Staubus would have c ast any more doubt on Kibbon’s test results than the HHS study

impeachme nt e vidence or Moore ’s cr oss-examination. The cre dibilit y deter minationNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 11 by state cour

ts of which expert to be lieve, is not revie wable by a habea s court. W alk e r v . E ng le , 703 F.2d 959, 969- 70 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. de nied , 464 U.S. 962 (1983). Samatar ma

y now wish that his trial counsel had employ ed a differ ent s trategy , but that does not mean that he w as denie d eff ective c ounsel. Moore cross-e x amined the state’s witness with g reat skill and effe ct. Unfor

tunately , the cour

t believed e noug h of Kiddon’s testimony to find Samat ar g u i l t y. I V. Samatar n e xt ar g ue s th a t he wa s de pr ive d of his Con sti tut ion a l ri g ht to d ue pr oc e ss b e c a

us e his conviction for ag g rava ted possession of a c ontrolled substance , to wit, cathinone, in an amount

ov e r o ne hund

re d ti me s th e bu lk a

mou nt, wa s no t su

pp or te d b y su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e . T he Du e Pr oc e ss Clause of the Four

teenth Amendment preve nts a st ate from convicting a person of any crime w ithout proving the eleme nts of that crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. Fi or e v . W hite , 531 U.S. 225, 228-29 (2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979))

. We must consider not whether there

wa s any e vid e nc e to s up po rt

a state -c ourt c on vic tio n, but w he the r t he re wa s su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to justify a rational trie r o f fa ct to find guilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. Jack son , 443 U.S. at 316 (c i t i n g In reW

ins hip , 397 U. S. 358 , 3 64 (1 97 0) ). Suc h e vid e nc e mus t be vie we d in the lig ht m os t favor able to the pr osecution. W rig ht v . W est , 5 0 5 U. S

. 2 7 7 , 2 9 6 (1 9 9 2 ) ( ci t i n g Jack son , 443 U.S. at 319). The pr osecution is not affir matively require d to “rul e out ever y hy pothesis except that of g uilt.” Id. (q u o t i n g Jack

son , 443 U.S. at 326). Samatar a rgues that Kiddon’s testimony , which was the onl y direc t evidence that he wa s everNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 12 in possession of cathinon e, re veals that the B CItesting w as flaw ed and f ails to prove a c ritical element in the of

fense for whic h Samatar w as convic ted. The state ’s test results for c athinone appe ar to be improbable. We que stion why the prosec ution pr esente d such evidenc e rathe r t h an perf orm

a dd iti on a l te sts on

the kh a t. H ow e ve r, in r e vie wi ng the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e c la im, we mus t defe r to the trier

of fa ct with respec t to issues of conflicting testimony , weig ht of the evide nce, a nd the cr edibility

of witnesses. Jack

son , 4 43 U. S. at 31 9; W

alker , 703 F.2d at 969. Kiddon maintained that his finding wa s corr ect, e ven if his finding of no cathine was fla wed. His st ro n g testimony

cre ated suff

icient evidenc e to justify a rational trier of f

act i n fi nding the khat in Samatar’ s po sse ssi on

c on ta ine d a

high le vel of c a thi no ne . Si nc e a re a so na ble tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld f

ind g uil t b ey o n d a r ea s o n ab l e d o u

b t , t h er e i s n o b as i s fo r t h i s C o urt t o o v erturn th at fi n d i n g. Samatar f urther a rgues that Kiddon’s testimo ny w o u ld h a v e b e e n in a d mi s s ib leunder Da ub e rt v. Me rrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc

. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). This argument, which wa s never prese nted to the state courts and first prese nted in Samatar’s habea s petition, is inapplica ble. When asked by the trial cour

t, Moore had no obje ction to Kiddon being qualified a s an expert. Moreove r, the Da ub e rt iss ue wa s n ot c e rt if ie d f or a pp e a l. V. Appellant arg ues t hat t he Ohio trial court err ed whe n it barre d his ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel c laims in his petition for post conviction relief. In support of t hose cla ims, he attache d the aff idavit of Dr. Alf

red Staubus, a c hemist who sugg ests that the B CIlaboratory misidentified cathine for c athinone and attacks the va lidity of the Kiddon’s lab repor t. The trial cour

t applied the doctr ineNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 13
of re s ju dic ata beca

use t he court of appeals had considere d and ruled on the s ame issue. Under the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata , a fina l judgment of conv i ct i o n bars the c onvicted def endant f rom raising and litigating in any proce eding , except an appea l f rom that judgme nt, a

ny defe nse or any

claimed lack of due proc ess that was r aised or c ould have be en rai s ed b y t h e defe ndant at the tria l which

r e s u lt e d in th a t ju d g me n t o f c o n v ic ti o n o r o n an a p p e a l f r o m th a t ju d g ment. St a t e v. Szefcyk , 671 N. E

. 2 d 2 3 3 , 2 3 5 (O h i o 1 9 9 6 ) ( d i s cu s s i n g Sta te v . P e rry , 226 N.E.2d 104, 108 (Ohio 1967) ). Samatar ar g ue s th at re

s ju dic ata should not apply beca use Ohio law prohibited supporting

a ff ida vit s d ur inghis fi rs t and

on ly op po rt un ity to l iti g a te the ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im. Ohio appellate courts ar e strictly limit ed to consider ing ma t t ers that a ppear in the rec ord fr om the trial. Sta te v . I

sh ma il , 377 N.E.2d 500, 502 (Ohio 1978) . He c ould not have argued the claim at a n

ear lier stag e, such as in his motion for new trial, beca use he was still repr esente d by Moore on that motion, and Ohio la

w prohibits c ounsel from raising claims of his own eff ectivene ss. See State v

. Le ntz , 6 40 N. E. 2d

83 9 ( Oh io1 99 4) . T hu s, he argues , even tho ug h h e ha d th e op po rt un ity to r a ise

c la ims of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l on dir e c t a

pp e a l, the po st c on vic tio n pe tit ion wa s th e fi rs t opportunity

he had to suppleme nt the rec ord on such a claim. I f petitioner’ s trial counsel ha d rema ined as c ounsel duringthe direc t appe al , re s ju dic ata would not apply

. Com bs v . Co y le , 205 F.3d 269, 277 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that post conviction claims for ineffe ctive assistance of counsel will not be barr ed o n res judicata g rounds when suc h claims wer e not broug ht on direct a ppeal beca u s e p et itioner’s trial counse l continued to repr esent him on direct appe al), cert. de nied, 5 31 U. S. 1 03 5 ( 20 00 ); Lorra inev . Co y le , 291 F .3 d 4 16 , 4 25 (6 thNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 14 Cir. 2002) (holding that “althoug h Ohio cour t s gen era lly require defe ndants to raise ine ffe ctive assistance of trial counsel claims on direc t appea l, (citation omitted), as the district cour t ruled, the defa ult is not nece ssarily

fata l here beca

use one of Petitioner’s trial counsel remained on the direct appea l team ”)

. Ho we v er , in this case, Samatar ’s trial counse l Moore wa s not counsel duringthe dir e c t a pp e a l, a nd Samatar a c tua lly

lit ig a te d h is c la im o f i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. I n O hio , c la ims of

the de nia l of

the e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c ann ot b e c on sid e re d in post conviction proce eding s where they wer e or c ould have be en fully litigated, see Pe rry , 226 N.E.2d at 108, unless they are depende nt on matters outside the re cord. SeeOh i o R ev. C ode § 2953.21 et. seq. ; and see State v . Keith, 68 4 N .E .2 d 47, 67 (O hio 19 97 ); State v. Madrigal , 721 N.E.2d 52 (Ohio 2000) . Samatar’ s ineffe ctive assistanc e cla im is not dependa nt upon matters outsi d e th e r e c o r d b e c a

u s e th e St a

u b u s a f f id av it me r e ly s u

p p o rts ar g u me n ts a lr e a dy ma d e in the

rec ord, i.e. , that the prosec ution’s test for cathinone was invalid. Such ar g uments do not create a ne w and sepa rate claim. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the district court properly applied re

s ju dic ata to Samatar’s c laims for ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel and Staubus’s aff idavit. As noted by

the state cour t and the Mag istrate Judge in hi s R ep o rt and Rec ommendation, “the f act that [Samatar]

now attache s additional evidenc e in suppor t of his c laims doe s not make the doctrine of re s ju dic ata ina pp lic a ble . [Samatar] c ann ot s imp ly c on tin ue su bmi tti nga dd iti on a l e vid e nc e in s up po rt of his arguments on multi ple occ asions.” V I. Samatar a rgues t h at reg ardle ss of whethe r res judicata wa s p ro pe rl y a pp lie d b y the stateNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 15 court, the Staubus af

fidavit should be considere d in the fede ral ha beas pr ocee dings through either

an e vid e nti ary

he ari ngor add it io nal dis c ov e ry . We do no t f ind that e ith e r i s a

pp ro pr iate in t

he se

c ir c ums tanc e s. A. An evidentiar

y hear ing w ill be appropriate only if the “r espondent wa s not at fault in failing t o d e v e l o p t h a te v i d e n c e i ns t a t e c o u rt , o r ( i f h e w a s a tf

a u l t ) i f th e c o n d i t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d b y § 2254(e) (2) were met.” Holland v. Jac kson , 5 42 U. S. 6 49 , 6 52 -5 3 ( 20 04 ). Th e re fo re , th e a ff ida vit may be conside red in habea s throug h an evide ntiary hear ing only

if Samatar satisfies the two-par t test contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) :

(2 ) I f t he a pp lic ant h a s f

a ile d to de ve lop the fa c tua l ba sis of a c la im in State court procee d i n gs , the cour t shall not hold an evidentiary he ari ngon

the c la im unle ss t

he a pp lic ant s ho ws that - (A) the claim re lies on - (i) a new rule of constitutional law , made r etroa ctive to c a se s o n c oll a ter a l r e vie w b y the Sup re me Court , that was pre viously

unavailable ; or (ii) a f actua l p re d i cate that could not have be en previously d i s cover ed throug h the exercise of due diligenc e; and (B ) t he fa c ts und e rl yingthe c la im w ou ld be su ffici e nt t o establish by

clea r and c onvin cingevidenc e that but for constitutional error, no r easona ble fa ct finder w ould have found the a

pplicant guilty

of the unde rlying of

fense

. 28 U.S .C

. § 22 54 (e ). To me ri t an e vid e nti ary he ari ngin h a

be a s und e r § 22 54 (e ), pe tit ion e r m us t have be e n d ili g e nt b y

se e kin g an e vid e nti ary

he ari ng“ in state c ourt in the mann e r p re sc ri be d b y state law.” W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 420, 437 (2000). Secti o n 2 2 5 4 (e) require s that the fac tual predic ates c ould not have bee n discovere d throug h the exercise of due dilige nce.No. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 16 [The pr i s o n er must make a re asonable attempt,] i n light of the

inf or matio n ava ila

ble a t the tim e , to inv e sti g a te and purs ue c la ims in state cour t . . . Thoug h lack of

diligenc e w i l l n o t b ar a

n evidentiar

y hear ing if eff orts to discover the f

acts would have bee n in v ai n, see 2254(e) (2)( A)(ii), a

nd there is a

convincingclaim of innoce nce, see § 2 25 4( e )( 2) (B ), on ly

a pr iso ne r who ha s n e g le c te d h is r ig hts in s tate c ourt ne e d s a tis fy

the se c on dit ion s. Id. at 435. Her e, the state appellate co u rt re fu s ed to consider the Staubus aff idavit, noting that Sa m at ar h ad ad vance d no rea son why he could not have prese nted it when he f irst had the opportunity

to do so in suppor

t of his moti on for ne w trial. Samatar never reque sted an e videntiary hear ing in his motion for new trial, wher ein he first submitted Dr. Ke ll’s affidavit challeng ing the BSI testing me thods for khat. A f ailure to re quest a new trial hea ring waived the issue of whe ther an evide ntiary

hear ing should have bee n conducte d by the trial cour

t on that motion. B. Th e dis c ov e ry

pr oc e ss o f the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure do e s n ot a uto matic a lly

a pp ly to habea s corpus a ctions, and a ha beas petitioner “is not e ntitled to discovery as a matter of or dinary

course .” Bracy v . Gramley , 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). A habea s petitioner’s reque st f or discover

y is subject to a mini m al s t andar d of “g ood cause .” Id. at 909. Under this standard, a district c ourt sh ou ld gra

nt l e ave to c on du c t di sc ov e ry in h a be a s c or pu s p ro c e e din gs on ly “ wh e re sp e c if ic

a lle g a tio ns be fo re the c ourt sh ow re a so n to bel ie ve that the pe tit ion e r may , if the fa c ts ar e mor e fu lly develope d, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . enti t l ed t o re l i ef

. . . .” Id. at 908-09. How ever , “[w]h en ex p ansi on of the re cord is used to a chieve the same e nd as an e videntiary hear ing, the petitioner oug h t t o b e s u b ject to the same constraints that would be imposed if he had soug ht anNo. 06-3833

Samatar v. Clarridge Pag e 17
evidentiar y hear ing.” Owens v. Frank, 3 9 4 F. 3 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 9 (7 thC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Boyk o v. Parke , 259 F.3d 781, 7 9 0 (7th Cir. 2001). Thus, for the same re asons that Samatar should be denied a

n

e v i d e n t i ar y h e ar i n g , h e s h o u l d

a l s o b e d e n i e d

a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e r

y. For the re asons stated a

bove, we AFF I RM the district co u rt ’s denial of Samatar’s ha beas corpus pe tition.