F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT OCT. 27, 2011 JO HN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 44 2

__
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 6- cv -0 12 71 -MS S-GJ K

JAM ES GUZMAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA ATTORNEY G ENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll an ts
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 7, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e:In th is de at h p en al ty case, Re sp on de nt s- App el le es ap pe al th e Dis tri ct

Co ur t’s Ord er g ran ti ng Pet it io ne r Guz m an a ne w tri al ba se d upo n B rady an d 1 Gig li o erro rs in vo lv in g t he Sta te ’s paym en t o f $5 00 in rewardm on ey to Mart ha 2 Cro ni n, t he st at e’s ke y

wit ne ss . As to th e Gig li o v io la ti on , Guzm an arg ue s t ha t

3 Cro ni n a ndth e le adde te ct iv e in th is cas e, All is on Sy lv es te r, bo th tes ti fie d fa ls el y attri al th atCro ni n re cei ve d n o b en efi t fo r he r te st im on y ag ai ns t Gu zm an , othe r th an be in g t ak en to a m ot el rat he r th an to jail aft er s he was a rres te d o n u nr el at ed ch arg es . W it h re sp ectto th e Bra dy vio la ti on , Guzm an co nt en ds th atth e St at e fai le d t o d is cl os e th atCro ni n was pa ida $5 00 rewardforhe r te st im on y . Howev er, si nc e we u lt im at el y

ho ldth atth e wri t s ho ul d i ss ue ba se d o n Gu zm an ’s Gig li o cl ai m , th ereb y

va cat in g h is co nv ic ti on , we nee d n otde ci de hi s B rad y cla im . See Co op er v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 64 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 31 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Bec au se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ad jud ic at edan d re

jecte d Gu zm an ’s Gig li o c la im

on th e m eri ts , we m

us t d et erm in e whe th er t he Dis tri ctCo urt, i n gr an ti ng Guzm an habe as rel ie f, vi ol at edth e Ant i-Te rro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death

Br ady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct . 1194, 1196–97 (1963). 1 Gig lio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154–55, 92 S . Ct. 763, 766 (1972). 2 Although Guzman raised a numbe r of diff ere nt habea s claims in the District Court 3 which we re de nied, he did not cr oss appea l. 2Pen al ty A ct ’s (AEDPA) def eren ti al st an da rd s o f rev ie w. Mor e sp eci fic al ly, th is ap pe al requi res us to de ci de whet he r th e st at e co ur t’s d eci si on : (1 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to , or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , cl earl y es tabl is he d Fed era l l a w , as de te rm in ed by th e S u p rem e Co urt of th e Uni te d St at es ; or (2 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was ba se d on an un reas on ab le de te r mi n a t i on of th e fact s i n l ig htof t he ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Becau se we ho ldth atGuzm ande m on st rat edan
un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n b y th e st at e co urt o f th e Gig li o s ta nd ard , we affi rm th e Dis tri ctCo ur t’s Ord er g ran ti ng habe as rel ie f. As a p rel im in ary m at te r, we ob se rv e th atin th is cas e, th ere a re n o i ss ue s o f pr oc edur al ba r, ex ha us ti on , st atut e o f li m it at io ns , or n on -ret ro act iv it y oft en
en co un te redin habe as cas es . Neit he r are t he fact s t he m se lv es in di sp ut e. Our li m it edrol e h ere i s t o app ly the “ m at eri al it y ” st an da rdof Gi gl io , whi ch is a qu es ti on of l aw no t en ti tl eda pr es um pt io n o f co rrec tn es s u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e). Mo on v. Head , 28 5 F .3d13 01 , 13 10 –1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . W e n ow turn to th e fac ts un de rlyin g Gu zm an ’s Gig li o c la im

.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On Dec em

be r 13 , 19 91 , Guz m an was a rres te d fo r th e m ur de r of Davi d Co lv in . Guzm an ’s sec on d t ria l b eg an on Decem be r 2, 1 99 6, an d, i n t hi s t ria l,

3Guz m an waiv edhi s ri gh t t o ajury in bo th th e g ui ltan d p en al ty pha se s o f th e tr ia l. 4

Afte r a b en ch tri al be fo re t he Hon or ab le W il li am C. Jo hn so n, Ci rcu itJu dg e, Guz m an was fo un d g ui lt y of f irs t d eg ree m

ur de r an d a rm edrob be ry

with ade ad ly weap on . The t ria l co ur t s en te nc edGuzm an to de at h a s t o t he m ur de r co un t an d t o 5 li fe i m pr is on m en t o n t he arm edrob be ry co un t, wi th th e se nt en ces to run
co ns ecu ti ve ly. 6 As d es cri be d b y

th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t, t he Sta te pre se nt edth e fo ll owi ng ev id en ce i m

pl ic at in g Gu zm an as C ol vi n’s m ur de rer:

Guzman was orig inally

indicted on J anuar

y 7, 1992, and, on September 25, 1992, a jury 4 found Guzman guilty

of robbe ry

with a dea dly

wea pon and first de g ree murder. Guzman was adjudicate d guilty

on both counts and sentenc ed to death on the murder c onviction and to life imprisonment on the robbery conviction. The F lorida Supreme Court subseque ntly reve rsed Guzman’s convictions and de ath sentenc e and r emande d for a new tria l, holding that Guzman’s rig ht to a fair tr ial was violated be cause his public defende r had a conflict of inter est. See Guzman v. State, 644 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1994) ( Guzman I ). J udg e Johnson also presided over the postconviction evidentiary hearing a nd issued the 5 trial court or ders de nying Guzman relief. The Court stated: 6 In its sentenc ing order , the trial court found the following fi v e ag g ravating circ umstances: (1) Guzman was pre viously convicted of a fe lony

involving the use of violence; (2) the murder was committed in the course of a robber y ; (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding arr est; (4) the murder was committed in a cold, cal cu l at ed, and preme ditated manner (CCP); and (5) the murder was espec ially heinous, atroc ious, or crue l (HAC). Guzman I I

, 721 So. 2d at 1158. The trial cour t found no statutory

mitigatingcirc umstances, a nd, as nonstatutory

mitigation, the trial c ourt found that Guzman’s alc ohol and drugdepende ncy was established but that it was entitled to littl e we ight. I d. 4App ro xi m at el y on e week pr io r to the m ur de r, Guz m an an d Mar th a Cro ni n, a pr os ti tu te an d crac k co cai ne ad di c t , b e g an li vi ng to ge th er at th e Im pe ria l Mo to r Lod ge . C o l v i n a l so res id ed at th e m ot el , an d Guz m an an d Co lv in be cam e acq ua in te d. On th e m orni ng of Aug us t 10 , Co lv in an d Guz m an le ft th e ho te l in Co lv in ’s car. Guz m an an d Co lv in fir st pr oc eed ed to a ta ve rn an d dr an k be er, th en th e m en wen t to th e In te rn at io na l Hou se of Pan cak es an d at e br eak fas t. G u z man te st ifi ed t h a t he an d Co lv in returne d to th e m ot el at ap pr ox im at el y 12 n o o n . Guz m an st at ed th at he ga ve Co lv in ’s car an d ro om ke y s ba ck to Co lv in an d returne d to hi s ro om . Guz m an te st ifi ed th at at ap pr ox im at el y 3 p.m . Cu rti s W al la ce ga ve hi m a di am on d rin g th at he co ul d se ll or tra de fo r drug s. Guz m an ad m it te d th at he ga ve th e rin g to Lero y Gad so n in

7 ex ch an g e f

or drug s an d m on ey . Howev er, Guz m an de ni ed an y 8 in vo lv em en t i n C ol vi n’s ro bb ery an d m ur de r. Cro ni n’s tri al te st im on y co nt rad ic te d Guz m an ’s. Cro ni n te st ifi ed th at Guz m an to ld he r pr io r to th e m ur de r th at Co lv in wou ld be eas y to ro b be cau se he was al way s drun k an d us ua ll y ha d m on ey . Cro ni n st at ed th at Guz m an to ld he r in an ot he r co nv ers at io n th at if he e v e r r ob be d an y bo dy, he “ wou ld ha ve to ki ll th em ” be cau se “ a de ad wit ne ss can ’t ta lk .” Cro ni n te st ifi ed th at Guz m an was ho ld in g hi s su rv iv al kn ife at th e ti m e th is st at em en t was m ad e. Cro ni n c la im edth at , on th e m orni ng of A u g u s t 1 0 , G uz m an to ld he r th at he was go in g to dr iv e Co lv in to th e ba nk

. C r o n i n st at ed th at Guz m an returne d to th ei r ro om th at m orni ng an d sh owe d he r Co lv in ’s car ke y s an d ro om ke y s. Cro ni n te st ifi ed th at at ap pr ox im at el y 3 p.m . Guz m an ap pe ared at th ei r ro om with a ga rb ag e ba g th at co nt ai ne d rag s. Cro ni n sa id th at Guz m an lo ok ed up se t, an d th at s h e a sk ed hi m wha t was wro ng . Cro ni n te st ifi ed th at Guz m a n res po nd ed , “ I di d it ,” an d co nf es se d to m

ur de rin g Co lv in

. Cro ni n st at ed th at Guz m an to ld he r th at Co lv in awak en ed whi le he was ta ki ng m on ey fro m Co lv in ’s ro om . Cro ni n te st ifi ed th at G u z man sa id th at he hi t

Whil e Guzman admitted that he possesse d and sold Colvin’s ring, the rec ord 7 demonstrates he testified he g ot it from Cronin, not W allace

. The State produc ed testimony at Guzman’s trial that he sold a r ing be longing to Colvi n 8 to Gadson on August 10, 1991. Gadson testified that he w as conta cted by Guzman at approximately

4:00 or 5:00 p.m. on August 10, 1991. 5Co lv in in t h e he ad an d th en st ab be d hi m wit h th e sa m ur ai swo rd

. Cro ni n st at ed th at Guz m an sh owe d her a di am on d rin g an d m on ey th at he ha d ta ke n fro m Co lv in

. Cro ni n a l s o s t a te d th at Guz m an sa id he 9 co m m it te d t he m

ur de r fo r he r. Upo n qu es ti on in g by th e po li ce sh or tl y aft e r t h e di sc ov ery of Co lv in ’s bo dy, Guz m an an d Cro ni n bo th cl ai m ed to kn ow no th in g ab ou t th e m ur de r. In t h e l a tt er pa rt of Nov em be r 19 91 , C ro ni n in fo rm ed th e po li ce tha t Guzm an ha d con fes se d to he r th at he ki ll ed Co lv in

. Cro ni n te st ifi ed th at Guz m an ha d in st ru ct ed he r to te ll th e po li ce th at sh e kn ew no th in g ab ou t th e m

ur de r. Cro ni n al so t e s t i f

i e d th at sh e di d no t co m e fo rward earl ie r be cau se Guz m an th reat en ed to ha rm he r if sh e rev eal ed wha t sh e kn ew ab ou t t h e cri m e. Guz m an ad m it te d th at he to ld Cro ni n pr io r to hi s fir st tri al to “ do th e rig ht th in g gi rl- it ’s a sm al l wor ld .” Pau l Ro ge rs an d Guz m an b e c a me fri en ds whi le sh ari ng a jail cel l in th e Sp rin g o f 19 92

. Ro ge rs te st ifi ed th at Guz m an co nf es se d t o h im

th athe ro bb ed an d ki ll ed Co lv in

. Ro ge rs sa id th at Guz m an to ld hi m th at he us ed Co lv in ’s ke y to en te r hi s ro om aft er th e m en returne d fro m dr in ki ng , an d th at Co lv in awak en ed whi le Guz m an was ro bb in g hi m . Ro ge rs fu rth er te st ifi ed th at Guz m an st at ed th at , aft er Co lv in sa t up in th e be d, Guz m an s t ru ck Co lv in te n or el ev en ti m es wit h th e swo rd

. Ro ge rs st at ed th a t G u z man s a id he cl ean ed th e swo rd an d pu t “ ev erythi ng ” in a ga rb ag e ba g whi ch he di s po se d of in a du m ps te r. Ro ge rs al so st at ed th at Guz m an ad m it te d th at he to ok Co lv in ’s rin g an d so m e m on ey an d tra de d th e rin g f or drug s. Guz m an al le ge dl y to ld Ro ge rs th at he ro bb ed an d Apar t from Cronin’s testimony , there was a lso evidence that Guzman possessed 9 Colvin’s ring a

nd trade d it for drug s and money afte r Colvin was killed. But ther e we re only two differ ent fa ctual ver sions of how Guzman came into possession of the ringon August 10, 1991, both of which we re pr esente d at Guzman’s trial: one fr om Cronin and one fr om Guzman. Cronin testified that Guzman showed he r the ringwhen he came back to their motel room and conf

essed to killi ngColvin. In contra diction, Guzman testified that Cronin turned a trick inside the ir motel room while he w aited outside. Afte r Cronin was f inished, Guzman came into the room a nd Cronin ga ve him $50 and then told Guzman she wa s g oing to se e Curtis Wallace a nd buy some drug s. I d. When Cronin returned, she had a r ing in he r hand a nd Wallace wa s with her. Acc ordingto Guzman’s testimony , Cronin told Guz man that Wallace w anted to tra de the r ing f or cra ck coc aine. Guzman testified that he believed that the ringbelong ed to Wallace a nd admits that he, Guzman, sold the ringto L eroy Gadson for

$250 and a qua

ntity of coc aine, whic h he share d with Wallace and Cronin. 6ki ll edCo lv in so Cro ni n wo ul d n otha ve to earn m on ey as a pro st itut e. Ro ge r s s a i d t h at Guz m an th reat en ed to ki ll hi m an d hi s fam il y if he in fo rm edth e p ol ic e ab ou t h is kn owl ed ge of t he m ur de r. Guz m an II, 72 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 15 7– 58 . On d ire ctap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t affi rm edGuzm an ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es , alt ho ug h i t h el d t ha t t he ev id en ce di d n otsupp or t t he co ld , cal cu la te d, an d p rem ed it at edag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce. Id . at 1 15 6. Th e Uni te d S ta te s Su pr em e Co ur t d en ie d c ert io rari . Guzm an v. Fl or id a , 52 6 U.S. 1 10 2, 1 19 S. Ct. 1 58 3 (1 99 9)

. Afte r hi s d ire ctap pe al be cam e fi na l, Gu zm an fil eda ti m el y m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua ntto Flo rid a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0, wh ic h he lat er am en de d t o i nc lu de a Brad y an d Gi gl io cla im

in vo lv in g t he fal se te st im on y of C ro ni n a ndth e wit hh ol di ng of e vi de nc e fro m th e d efen se co nc ern in g a $ 50 0 re wardpa idto Cro ni n. Th e st at e tr ia l co ur t g ran te d Gu zm an an ev id en ti ary he ari ng as t o h is Brad y

an d Gi gl io cla im , as wel l as a few o th ers , andde ni edhi s
rem ai ni ng cla im s. In supp or t o f hi s v ari ou s cl ai m s, Gu zm an pre se nt edth e te st im on y of e ig htwit ne ss es an d i nt ro du cedsev eral ex hi bi ts du rin g t he st at e
ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Mart haCro ni n d idno t t es ti fy at t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Bas edup on th e fac ts ad du cedat t ria l an d t he st at e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e Dis tri ctCo ur t s umm ari zedth e fo ll owi ng fact s s ig ni fic an t t o Gu zm an ’s Brad y an d Gig li o c la im :
7A t tria l, Dete ct iv e [All is on ] Sy lv es te r te st ifi ed th at sh e qu es ti on ed

Ms

. Cro ni n on Aug us t 12 , 19 91 , an d th at Ms

. Cro ni n fai le d to of fer an y in fo rm at io n pe rta in in g to th e cas e. On Sep te m be r 24 , 19 91 , Ms

. Cro ni n was qu es ti on ed by Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r a n d , ag ai n, sh e de ni ed an y in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e ho m ic id e. [FN5 ]

. . . M s . C r o n i n pr ov id ed a st at em en t la te on Nov em

be r 23 , 19 91 , an d in to Nov em be r 24 , 19 91 , ne ar m id ni gh t im

pl ic at in g Pet it io ne r as th e pe rp et rat or of th e ho m ic id e. Ms

. Cro ni n ha d an act iv e warra nt fo r he r arre st on Nov em be r 24 , 19 91 , du e to an ou ts ta nd i ng warra nt fo r vi ol at io n of pr ob at io n. Ms

. Cro ni n was se ek in g a “ de al ,” bu t th e as si st an t st at e at to rn ey ha nd l i n g t he cas e in st ru ct ed Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r to arre st
. Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r reject ed th is di rect iv e an d di d no t arre st Ms

. Cro ni n. In st ead , Ms

. Cro ni n was ta ke n to a ho te l an d pr ov id ed wit h fo od , w h i c h w as pa id fo r by th e Dayto na Bea ch Po li ce Dep art m en t, i n o rd er t o k eep “ an ey e o n h er wh il e [the y ] fin is he d [up] fo ll owi ng up . . . in fo rm at io n.” Howev er, Ms

. Cro ni n le ft th e ho t e l o n Nov em

be r 24 , 19 91 , wit ho ut pe rm is si on , an d la w en fo rcem en t l os t con ta ct wit h her

. Ms

. Cro ni n eng ag ed in pr os ti tu ti on an d u se d c rackco cai ne aft er s he lef t t he ho te l. FN5

. Ms

. Cro ni n con firm ed in he r tri al te st im on y th at sh e t ol d la w en fo rcem en t on Aug us t 12 , 19 91 , an d o n Sep te m be r 24 , 19 91 , th at sh e kn ew no th in g ab ou t th e ho m ic id e. Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r th en arre st ed Ms

. C r on in on Nov em be r 27 , 19 9 1 , f o r o ut st an di ng warra nt s fo r vi ol at io n of pr ob at io n. Whe n Ms

. Cro ni n was arre st ed on Nov em be r 27 , 1 9 9 1 , Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r was afra id th at Ms

. Cro ni n wou ld fle e, an d Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r ad m it te d th at Ms

. Cro ni n was arre st ed be cau se sh e was th e pr im e w it ne ss an d was ne ed ed fo r th e cas e. Ms

. Cro ni n was , ne ve rth el es s, rel eas ed fro m jail on Decem be r 5, 1 99 1.P et it io ne r was arre st edon Decem be r 13 , 19 91

. Ms

. Cro ni n te st ifi ed be fo re th e gr an d ju ry a g ai ns t Pet it io ne r on Ja nu ary 11 , 19 92

. At th e tri al , Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r de ni ed th at sh e, la w en fo rcem en t, or th e St at e Att orne y ’s of fic e ha d of

fere d [Ms

. Cro ni n] an y de al s in ex c h a n ge fo r he r te st im on y . Ms

. Cro ni n al so de ni ed ev er rece iv in g a de al fro m la w en fo rcem en t, al th ou gh sh e ack n o w le dg ed
8be in g p la cedin a ho te l ro om forpro te ct io n. A t t h e Ru le 3.8 50 ev id en ti ary he ari ng , ho wev er, aft er de fen s e in ve st ig at io n ha d rev eal ed a pa ym en t ha d be en mad e t o Ms

. Cro ni n, Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r co nc ed ed t h a t , o n Ja nu ary 3 , 1 99 2, jus t ei gh t da y s be fo re Ms

. Cro ni n te st ifi ed be fo re th e gr an d jury sh e de li ve red a m on ey or de r to th e Vol us ia Co un ty Ja il in th e su m of $5 00 m ad e pa y ab le to Ms

. Cro ni n. Th e m on ey was pl aced in Ms . C ro ni n’s pr is on acco un t whe re sh e was in carc erat ed an d was pr ov id ed to he r be cau se sh e ha d pr ov id ed in fo rm at io n le ad in g to th e a rr e s t of Pet it io ne r. Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r de ni ed th at Ms

. Cro ni n was pa id fo r he r te st im on y . Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r co ul d no t reca ll whe n th e rewa r d mo n e y h ad fir st be en of fere d to Ms

. Cro ni n. Howev er, th e rewar d was or ig in al ly o f f e red on Aug us t 16 , 19 91 , fo r in fo rm at io n “ ab ou t a m an st ab be d to de at h in hi s m ot el ro om .” The rewar d of

fer was pu bl is he d in th e Dayto na Bea ch News- Jo urna l an d th e Orla nd o Sen ti ne l. Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r reca ll e d t h a t Ms

. Cro ni n’s m ot he r co nt act ed he r on Ja nu ary 2, 19 92 , “ as ki ng if it were po ss ib le fo r [Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r ] to ob ta in th e rewar d m on ey to ge t it to [Ms

. Cro ni n] in cas e sh e go t ou t whe n sh e wen t to co ur t th at da y .” Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r te st ifi ed th at sh e ha d no t di sc lo se d to th e pr os ecu ti ng at to rn ey th e $5 00 rewar d pa id to Ms

. Cro ni n. The pr os ecu to r d e n i e d a ny kn owl ed ge of t he $5 00 reward

. Guz m an v. Sec’y , Dep ’t Co rrs ., 69 8 F

. S u p p . 2d 13 17 , 13 22 –2 3 (M.D. Fl a. 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

. Afte r th e st at e co ur t ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e tr ia l co ur t d en ie d a ll of Guz m an ’s rem ai ni ng cla im s, i nc lu di ng hi s Gi gl io cla im in a writ te n Ord er o n Mar ch4, 2 00 2. In reject in g Gu zm an ’s Brad y an d Gi gl io cla im s, t he st at e tr ia l

co ur t u se d t he same m at eri al it y st an da rdfor

bo th cla im s, s ta ti ng : Thi s Co ur t fin ds th at th es e al le ga ti on s do no t sa ti sf y th e te st s fo r a su ffi ci en t Brad y , Gig li o, or in effe ct iv e as si st an c e o f c ou ns el cl ai m . 9Tria l cou ns el ex te ns iv el y cro ss -ex am in ed Cro ni n, fo r ov er 8 8 pag es of

tri al tra ns cri pt s . . . . Thu s, th is Co urt was aware of th e fact th at Cro ni n ha d m ad e a n ag reem en t wit h th e St at e to te st ify ag ai ns t Defen da nt
. Fu rth e r , th ere was ot he r ev id en ce of Defen da nt ’s gu il t ap art fro m Cro ni n’s t es ti m on y . The refo re, th is Co ur t fin ds th at th ere is no t a r e as on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at ha d th e in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e $5 00 .00 rewar d pa id to Cro ni n be en di sc lo se d t o D e f e n d an t, th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t. Fu rth er, th is Co ur t fin ds th at th is st at em en t reg ard in g th e $5 00

. 0 0 r e w ard be in g pa id to Cro ni n is imm at eri al be cau se th er e is no t a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e fal se ev id en ce wou ld pu t th e who le cas e in su ch a di ffer en t li gh t as to un de rm in e th e co nf id en ce i n t he ve rd ic t. Guz m anap pe al edto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t an d s ep arat el y fil eda st at e pe ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t re m an de d Guz m an ’s Gig li o c la im

to th e tr ia l co ur t b ecau se th atco ur t’s “ res ol ut io n o f th e Gig li o c la im

[di d] no t s uf

fic ie nt ly reflec t t he st an da rdap pr op ria te to a Gig li o cl ai m ” in as m

uc h a s t he tri al co ur t’s o rd er fa il edto ad equa te ly dis ti ng ui sh be twee n th e Bra dy sta nd ardan d t he Gig li o s ta nd ardin co ns id eri ng an d d eci di ng th e Gig li o cl ai m . Guzm anv. St at e, 86 8 S o. 2 d 4 98 , 50 7 (F la . 20 03 ) (Gu zm an III). The Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t d en ie d t he rem ai ni ng cla im s i n b ot h t he ap pe al an d t he pe ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us , in cl ud in g Gu zm an ’s Brad y cla im . Id. at 50 8– 11 . W it h re sp ectto th e Bra dy clai m , th e co ur t i de nt ifi edth e fed eral Brad y st an da rdan d h el d t ha t t he $5 00 was fa vo rab le ev id en ce as im pe ach m en t ag ai ns t

10Cro ni n. Id . at 5 08 . The co ur t al so de te rm in edth atth e ev id en ce was supp res se d,

no ti ng Guzm anha d fi le d a“ sp eci fic di sc ov ery de m an d re qu es ti ng fro m th e St at e al l ag reem en ts or a ny con si de rat io n g iv en to a St at e wit ne ss , andth e St at e’s writ te n re sp on se st at edth atCro ni n re cei ve d n o ‘ag reem en ts , ass ur an ces of

no np ro se cu ti on or l en ie nc y , off ers , ben efi ts or u nd ers ta nd in gs .’ ” Id. Bu t t he 1 0
st at e co ur t d en ie d re li ef b ecau se itde te rm in edth atalt ho ug h t he Sta te supp res se d fav or ab le im

pe ach m en t ev id en ce, t he wit hh el d e vi de nc e was no t m at eri al . Id. at 50 8– 09

. On re m an d, t he tri al co ur t o nc e ag ai n d en ie d Gu zm anrel ie f on hi s Gi gl io cl ai m in a writ te n o rd er fi nd in g t ha t the ev id en ce was imm at eri al un de r Gig li o
On J une 25, 1996, seve ral months befor e trial, Guzman’s c ounsel filed a motion for 1 0 disclosure of impea chment evide nce. I n that motion, Guz man spec ifically reque sted disclosure of the following :

1. The substance of any and all statements, agree ments, offe rs or discussions had with any of the State’s witnesses or a sug g estion of

. . . compensation

. . . or any other offe r to benef

it acc ruing to said individual whatsoeve r i n ex chang e for their cooper ation, assistance of testimony of testimony

in the trial here in. 2. Any and all consideration or promises of considera tion g iven to or made on behalf of g overnme nt witnesses. By ‘consideration,’ [Guz man] ref ers to absolutely any

thing of value or use . . . and any thing else which could arguably cre ate an intere st or bias in the witness i[ n] favor of the State or a g ainst the defe nse or a ct as an induc ement to testify or to color testimony

. On Dec ember

2, 1996, the first day

of Guzman’s re trial, the state f iled a Statement of Par

ticulars re: State Witnesses, which stated, in re levant par t: “[t ]hat Martha Cronin has bee n subpoenae d as a witness for

trial in this cause a

nd, as such, ha s use immunity for he r testimony . There are no further agree ments, assuranc es of non- prosec ution or leniency , offe rs, bene fits, or understa ndings betwee n the State of F lorida and Ma rtha Cronin.”

11“ du e to th e am pl e im pe ach m en t an d c orro bo rat io n o f Cro ni n’s t es ti m on y , andth e in de pe nd en t ev id en ce o f [Gu zm an ’s] gu il t.” Th e tr ia l co ur t al so de te rm in edth at th e fal se ev id en ce was ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. In supp or t, t he tri al

co ur t ex pl ai ne d:

The Co ur t de te rm in es th at in li gh t of th e si gn ifi can t im pe ach m en t ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al an d th e ot he r ev id en ce of Guz m an ’s gu il t, th e ev id en ce o f t h e S t at e’s $5 00 .00 rewar d to Mar th a Cro ni n wou ld ha ve be en m erel y cu mu la ti ve an d imm at eri al

. The reco rd he rei n co nt ai ns ot he r ev id en ce o f Guz m an ’s gu il t ap artfro m Cro ni n’s t es ti m on y . Dr. Terran ce Stei ne r, th en in te rim m ed ic al ex am in er for Volu si a Co un ty, te st ifi ed at tri a l th at Co lv in ’s swo rd reco ve red fro m th e ro om co ul d ha ve in fli ct ed so m e of th e wou nd s to Co lv in ’s bo dy, an d th at Guz m an ’s su rv iv al kn ife co ul d ha ve in fli ct ed ot he r wou nd s to Co lv in ’s bo dy. Pau l Ro ge rs , th e jai l h o u s e wit ne ss who sh ared a jail cel l with G u zm an , co rro bo rat ed Cro ni n’s te st im on y . Pau l Ro ge rs te st ifi ed th a t Guz m an co nf

es se d to hi m th at he ro bb ed an d ki ll ed Co lv in

. The reco rd r e fle ct s th at it is un di sp ut ed th at Guz m an po ss es se d Co lv in ’s rin g an d tra de d i t fo r drug s an d c as h. Guz rn an ’s tri al co un se l pr e s e n te d si gn ifi can t im pe ach m en t ev id en ce ag ai ns t Cro ni n du rin g cro ss -ex am in at io n. Sp eci fi ca lly , Cr on in was im pe ach ed on : he r in it ia l cl ai m t o kn ow no th in g ab ou t Co lv in ’s m ur de r up on qu es ti on in g by th e po li ce aft er th e di sc ov ery of Co lv in ’s bo dy; he r a t t e m

pt to m ak e a de al with th e St at e aft er he r arre st , in ex ch an ge fo r he r da m ag in g t e s t i mon y ag ai ns t Guz m an ; he r di sc on te nt m en t wit h G uz m an ’s as so ci at io n wit h ot he r fem al e acq ua in ta nc es ; he r nu m ero us arre st s fo r p r o s ti tu ti on ; he r ad di ct io n to crac k c oc ai ne .

12Guz m an al so pr es en te d th e te st im on y at tri al fro m Carm el o

Garci a. Garci a te st i f

i e d t h a t Cro ni n to ld hi m sh e ha d li ed to th e po li ce ab ou t Gu zm an m

ur de rin g C ol vi n. Afte r ev al ua ti ng th e St at e’s $5 00 pa ym en t to Cro ni n in li gh t of th e ot he r ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al , th e Co ur t co nc lu de s th at th e ev id en ce of th e $5 00 pa ym en t to Cro ni n was imm at eri al un de r Gig li o. The Co ur t co nc lu de s t h a t th ere was no reas on ab le li ke li ho od th at th e fal se te st im on y reg ard in g th e $5 00 pa ym en t to Cro ni n co ul d ha ve affe ct ed th e co ur t’s jud gm en t as fact fin de r. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t af firm edth e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f Guz m an ’s Gig li o c la im

in a writ te n o pi ni on . Guzm anv. St at e , 94 1 S o. 2 d 1 04 5 (F la . 20 06 ) (Gu zm an IV). Afterid en ti fy in g t he Gig li o s ta nd ard , th e co urt d et erm in edth atth e
ev id en ce was imm at eri al

. Id. at10 50 –5 2. 1 1 Guz m anti m el y

fil eda fed eral pe ti ti on for writof h ab eas co rp us pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 i n t he Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, in whi ch he rai se d anu m

be r of co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s, i nc lu di ng hi s B rad y an d Gi gl io cla im s. Afte r br ie fin g b y

th e p art ie s, an d wi th ou t an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e Dis tri ctCo ur t gr an te d Gu zm an a ne w tri al ba se d upo n h is Brady an d Gi gl io cla im s an d d en ie d rel ie f on hi s re m ai ni ng cla im s. See Gu zm an , 69 8 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 33 3– 35 . In 1 2

The F lorida Supreme Court’ s statement of re asons in support of its decision will be 1 1 discussed in g reater de tail below. The District Court dec ided Guzman’s claim base d exclusively upon the fa cts which 1 2 wer e deve loped in the State cour t proce eding s without holdi nga fe dera l evidentiary hear ing. L ike the District Court, our re view under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the rec ord that wa s befor e the State c ourt that adjudicated Guzman’s claim on the mer its. S ee Cullen v. Pinholster, 13gr an ti ng habe as rel ie f, th e Dis tri ctCo ur t d et erm in edth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e

Co ur t h adco rrec tl y

id en ti fie d B rad y

an d Gi gl io as p ro vi di ng th e st an da rdfor ad jud ic at io n o f Guz m an ’s cla im s. Id . Butaft er ca refu ll y rev ie win g t he factua l

reco rdde ve lo pe d i n t he st at e co ur t p ro ceed in gs , bo th at t ria l an d i n p os tc on vi ct io n, th e Dis tri ctCo ur t fo un d t ha t t he fal se tes ti m on y was m at eri al un de r bo th Brad y
an d Gi gl io . Id. Fu rth er, the co ur t fo un d t ha t Gu zm an ha d s ho wn the tes ti m on y
was no t h arm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t an d t ha t i t h ada subs ta nt ia l i nju rio us effe ctin de te rm in in g t he tri al co ur t’s v erd ic t. Id . The Dis tri ctCo ur t t he refo re
co nc lu de d t ha t Gu zm an ha d s ho wn t ha t t he de ci si on of t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t

was co nt rary to, o r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law,

as de te rm in edby the Uni te d S ta te s Su pr em e Co ur t an d was ot he rwis e b as edon an
un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d. Id . at 13 33 –3 5. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW A di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o r de ni al of ahabe as co rp us pe ti ti on is rev ie wedde

no vo . W ardv. Hal l, 5 92 F.3d11 44 , 11 55 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Becaus e Guz m an fil edhi s fe de ral pe ti ti on aft er Ap ril 24 , 19 96 , th is cas e is go ve rn edby 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 , as a m en de d b y

th e Ant i-Te rro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h Act of 1 99 6

--- U.S.---, - --, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). 14(AEDPA). See Hen de rs on v. Ca m pb el l, 3 53 F.3d88 0, 8 89 –9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)

. AEDPA “ im

po se s a h ig hl y

de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardforev al ua ti ng st at e-co urt ru li ng s”

an d “ de m an ds th atst at e-co ur t d eci si on s b e g iv en th e b en efi t o f th e d oubt .” Ren ic o v. Let t , ---U.S.--- , ---, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 85 5, 1 86 2 (2 01 0) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. Bec au se Guzm an see ks habe as rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 b as edup on cla im s th atwere ad

jud ic at edon th e m eri ts by the st at e co ur ts , we are re st ric te d i n o ur ab il it y to gra ntrel ie f by § 22 54 (d ). Cav e v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rrs ., 63 8 F .3d73 9, 74 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . To gr an t Gu zm an ’s hab eas pe ti ti on , we m us t fi ndno t o nl y th atGuzm an ’s con st itut io na l cl ai m s ar e m eri to rio us , bu t al so th atth e st at e co ur t’s

res ol ut io n o f th os e cl ai m s:

(1 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to , or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , cl earl y es tabl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in ed by th e Supr em e Co urt of th e U n i te d St at es ; o r (2 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was b a s ed on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co ur t p ro ceed in g. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) ; s ee al so Cav e, 63 8 F .3dat 7 42 –4 3. Th e Supr em e Co ur t h as
reco gn iz edth at§ 2 25 4( d) (1 )’s “ co nt rary to” an d “ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” cl au se s h av e in de pe nd en t m ean in g. Be ll v. Co ne , 53 5 U.S. 6 85 , 69 4, 1 22 S. Ct. 18 43 , 18 50 (20 02 ).

15A st at e co ur t’s d eci si on is “ co nt rary to” cle arl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co ur t pr eced en t i n e it he r of

two res pe ct s: (1) “ if t he st at e co ur t ap pl ie s a rul e th at

co nt rad ic ts th e g ov ern in g l aw se t fo rth in [Supr em e Co ur t] cas es ,” or (2) “ if t he st at e co ur t co nf

ro nt s a s etof f

act s t ha t ar e m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m a de ci si on of [ th e Supr em e] Cou rt a ndne ve rth el es s arriv es at ares ul t d iff eren t fr om [th e Supr em e Co ur t’s] prec ed en t.” Will ia m s v . Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 40 5– 06 , 12 0 S. Ct . 14 95 , 15 19 –2 0 (2 00 0)

. To d et erm in e whe th er a s ta te co ur t d eci si on is an “ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” of c le arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law, t he Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y st at ed : The pi vo ta l qu es ti on is whe th er th e st at e co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e [rel ev an t co ns ti tu ti on al ] st an da rd wa s un reas on ab le

. . . . Fo r pu rp os es of § 22 54 (d )(1 ), an un re as on ab le ap pl ic at io n of fed eral la w is di ffer en t fro m an in co rr ect ap pl ic at io n of fed eral la w. A st at e co ur t m us t b e gr an te d a de fere nc e an d la ti tu de th at are no t in op erat io n whe n th e cas e in vo lv es rev ie w un de r th e [re le va ntco ns ti tu ti on al ] st an da rdit se lf. A st at e co urt’s de te rm in at io n th at a cl ai m la ck s m eri t pr ecl ud es fed eral habe as rel ie f so lo ng as f a i r mi n de d juri st s co ul d di sa gr ee” on th e co rrec tn es s of th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on . And as th e [Sup r e me C o u rt] ha s exp la in ed , ev al ua ti ng whe th er a rul e ap pl ic at io n was un reas on ab le req ui res co ns id eri ng th e ru le ’s sp eci fic it y . The m or e ge ne ral th e ru le , th e m or e le eway co urts h av e in reac hi ng ou tc om es in cas e-b y -cas e de te rm in at io ns . Harri ng to n v . Ric ht er, --- U.S. ---, ---, 1 31 S. Ct. 7 70 , 78 5– 86 (20 11 ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (em ph as is in ori gi na l).

16In ad di ti on , a st at e co ur t’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n i s en ti tl edto a pr es um pt io n of co rrec tn es s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e)( 1) . The AEDPA’s “ st atut ory pre su m pt io n o f

co rrec tn es s ap pl ie s o nl y

to fin di ng s o f factm ad e b y th e st at e co ur t, n otto m ix ed de te rm in at io ns of l aw an d fa ct .” Park er v . Head , 24 4 F .3d83 1, 8 36 (11 th Cir

. 20 01 ); Ha ll fo rdv. Cu ll iv er, 4 59 F.3d11 93 , 11 99 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A de te rm in at io n o f “ m at eri al it y ” fo r a Bra dy vio la ti on is a qu es ti on of l aw no t

en ti tl edto a pr es um

pt io n o f co rrec tn es s. Mo on , 28 5 F .3dat 1 31 0– 11

. Ult im at el y , bef

or e a fed eral co ur t m ay

gra nthabe as rel ie f un de r § 2 25 4( d) ,

“ a st at e p ris on er m

us t s ho w th atth e st at e co ur t’s ru li ng on th e cl ai m be in g pr es en te d i n fe de ral co ur t was so lac ki ng in jus ti fic at io n t ha t the re was an erro r well un de rs to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g l aw be y on d a ny po ss ib il it y for fai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , ---U.S. at---, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 6– 77 . In

or de r to m ak e th is de te rm in at io n u nd er § 22 54 (d ),

a habe as co urt m

us t de te rm in e wha t arg um en ts or th eo rie s supp or te d or , as he re, co ul d ha ve supp or te d, th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on ; a nd th en it m us t as k whe th er it is po ss ib le fai rm in de d juri st s co ul d d is ag ree th at th os e arg um en ts or th eo rie s are in co ns is te nt with th e ho ld in g in a pr io r de ci si on of t hi s C ou rt. Id . at 7 86 (em

ph as is ad de d) . W e em

ph as iz e, ho wev er, t ha t “ § 2 25 4( d) do es no t req ui re a s ta te co ur t t o g iv e rea so ns be fo re i ts de ci si on can be de em edto ha ve be en ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts .” Id . at -- -, 13 1 S . Ct. at78 5 (q uo ta ti on m ark s
17om it te d) . Butwher e th e st at e co ur ts ha ve tak en th e ti m e an d re so ur ces to is su e an

op in io n e xp la in in g t he ir d eci si on , a fed eral co ur t m us t co ns id er i t an d g iv e it de fere nc e. ” Id . at -- -, 13 1 S . Ct. at78 6– 77

.

1 3 Fi na ll y , a habe as pe ti ti on wil l o nl y be gra nt edif t he Co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n atth e tr ia l l ev el res ul te d i n “ actua l p reju di ce” t o t he pe ti ti on er. Bre ch t v
. Abr ah am so n, 5 07 U.S. 61 9, 6 37 , 11 3 S . Ct. 1 71 0, 1 72 2 (1 99 3) . The al le ge d e rro r
m us t h av e h ada “ su bs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” I d. at63 7– 38 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 22 –3 3 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)

. III. DISC USSION W e b eg in by not in g t ha t t he “ cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law” rel ev an t t o

Indeed, sinc e AED PA became law, f eder al cour

ts have e x pressly

considere d the 1 3 rea soning of

state cour

ts in determining that a state c ourt’s dec ision was contra ry to, or an unrea sonable a

pplication of, cle arly

established fe dera l law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See, e .g ., Porter v. McCullom, --- U .S. ---, -- -, 130 S. Ct. 447, 454 (2009) (findingthe Flor ida Supreme Court’s expli cate d decision in Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917 (2001), w as an unr easona ble application of the g ener al Strickland standar d, wher e the state court “ either did not consider or unrea sonably

discounted the mitigation evidence adduce d in the postconviction hearing” ); Ear ly v. Packer , 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S. C t. 362, 365 (2002) (pe r curiam) (indicating that § 2254 doe s not prec lude re lief if either

“the r easoning

[or] the re sult of the state-c ourt dec ision contradicts [our case s]”); W illiams, 529 U.S . at 407-08, 120 S. Ct. at 1520 (stating a pplication unrea sonable wher e state c ourt “c orre ctly identifies the g overningleg al rule but a pplies it unreasona

ble to the fac ts of a par

ticular prisone r’s c ase” ); Smit h, 572 F.3d 1327 ( car efully examining Flor ida Supreme Court’s wr itten decision which ha d denied c apital habe as petitioner r elief on B rady and Gig lio claims, then holding that state c ourt’s re jection of pe titioner’s Br ady claim was unrea sonable); Ve ntura v. Atty . Gen., F la., 419 F.3d 1269, 1281–82 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (ana ly zing a Gig lio claim under § 2254(d) and stating“whe ther the state court re ache d a conc lusion of law that contra dicts one re ache d by the Supreme Court-r equire s a ca ref ul analy sis of the Florida Supreme Court’s de cision”). 18Guz m an ’s cla im s was firm ly establ is he d b y Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co ur t h ol di ng s lo ng be fo re Gu zm an ’s tri al an d p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs . As lo ng ag o a s 1 4 Mo on ey v. Ho lo ha n, 2 94 U.S. 10 3, 1 12 , 55 S. Ct. 3 40 , 34 2 (1 93 5) , th e Supr em e Co ur t m ad e cl ear t ha t d el ib erat e d ecep ti on of aco ur t an d ju ro rs by the pre se nt at io n of kn own fal se ev id en ce i s i nc om pa ti bl e wit h “ ru di m en ta ry de m an ds of ju st ic e.” In Napu e v . Ill in oi s, 3 60 U.S. 26 4, 2 69 , 79 S. Ct. 1 17 3, 1 17 7 (1 95 9) , th e Supr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ [t]he same resu ltob ta in s wh en th e St at e, al th ou gh no t s ol ic it in g fal se ev id en ce, al lo ws i t t o g o u nc orrect edwhen itap pe ars .” Ther eaft er, Bra dy v. Mary la nd , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 7, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4, 1 19 6– 97 (19 63 ), he ldth at“ th e
supp res si on by the pro se cu ti on of e vi de nc e fav or ab le to an accu se d upo n re qu es t vi ol at es du e p ro ces s wh ere t he ev id en ce i s m at eri al eit he r to gu il t o r to pu ni sh m en t, i rres pe ct iv e o f th e g oo d fa it h o r ba d fa it h o f th e p ro se cu ti on .” “ Whe n th e ‘reli ab il it y

of agi ve n wi tn es s m ay

well be de te rm in at iv e o f gu il t o r in no cen ce,’

no nd is cl os ur e o f ev id en ce af fect in g c red ib il it y

fal ls wit hi n t hi s g en eral rul e.” 1 5

The phra se “c lear ly

established F eder al law” in §2254(d)(1) encompa sses only the 1 4 holdings of the United States Supreme Court “a s of the time of the r eleva nt state-cour

t decision.” Wil liams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S. C t. at 1523; see a lso Schwab v. Crosby , 451 F.3d 1308, 1324 (11th Cir. 2006). In 1976, the Supreme Court c lear ly established that “a

defe ndant nee d not reque st 1 5 favor able e vidence from the State to be e ntitled to it .” Smith v. S ec’ y Dept. Corrs., 572 F .3d 1327, 1333 -1334 (11th Cir. 2009) (c iting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103–07, 96 S. Ct

. 2392, 2397–99 (1976). 19Gig li o, 4 05 U.S. at 1 54 , 92 S. Ct. at76 6 (c it in g Nap ue , 36 0 U.S. at26 9, 7 9 S . Ct.

at11 77 ). Bu t we d o n ot“ au to m at ic al ly requ ire a ne w tri al when ev er a co m bi ng of th e p ro se cu to rs ’ fil es aft er t he tri al ha s d is cl os edev id en ce p os si bl y us efu l t o t he de fen se bu t n otli ke ly to h av e ch an ge d t he ve rd ic t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m arkom it te d)

.

“ A fin di ng of m at eri al it y

of t he ev id en ce i s re qu ire d u nd er Br ad y .” Id

. Guz m ancla im s tha t t he re was bo th a Gig li o v io la ti on an d aBrad y vi ol at io n athi s t ria l. Alt ho ug h t he two cla im s ar e rel at ed , each cla im is di ffer en t an d h as it s

“ own st an da rdforde te rm in in g wh et he r th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce [was ] m at eri al .” Sm it h, 5 72 F.3dat 1 33 3–34 . As no te d abo ve , we on ly deci de Guzm an ’s Gig li o cl ai m in th is op in io n. To es tabl is h aGig li o c la im , a habe as pe ti ti on er m us t p ro ve : “ (1 ) th e pr os ecu to r kn owi ng ly use d p erju redtes ti m on y or f ai le d t o c orrectwhat he

su bs eque nt ly learn edwas fa ls e te st im on y ; an d (2 ) su ch us e was m at eri al , i.e., th at th ere i s an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d . . . ha ve affe ct ed th e jud gm en t.” F or d v . Hall , 54 6 F .3d13 26 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) . For Gi gl io vi ol at io ns , th e d efen da ntis en ti tl edto a ne w tri al “ if th ere i s an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e

20jud gm en t o f th e jury.” Agu rs , 42 7 U.S. at10 3, 9 6 S . Ct. at23 97 . “ The co ul d 1 6 ha ve st an da rdrequi res a ne w tri al un le ss th e p ro se cu ti on pe rs ua de s the co ur t t ha t th e fal se tes ti m on y

was h arm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” S m it h, 5 72 F.3dat 13 33 –3 4. Gi gl io ’s m at eri al it y st an da rdis “ m or e d efen se -fri en dl y ” th an Brad y ’s. Ham m on d v . Hall , 58 6 F .3d12 89 , 13 06 n.4 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). By co m pa ris on , in Guzm an ’s cas e, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt s ta te d t he Gig li o t es t as fol lo ws: “ [t]o e st ab li sh a Gig li o v io la ti on , itm us t b e sh own th at : (1 ) th e te st im on y

gi ve n was fal se ; (2 ) th e p ro se cu to r kn ew th e te st im on y was fa ls e;
an d (3 ) th e st at em en t was m at eri al .” Guzman IV, 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05 0 (c it at io ns
om it te d) . This form

ul at io n o f th e Gig li o t es t i s s ub st an ti al ly the same as o ur s,
ex cep t we co m

bi ne th e st at e co ur t’s fi rs t an d s eco ndco m po ne ntin to ou r fi rs t pr on g. Be cau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co rrec tl y id en ti fie d t he go ve rn in g l eg al

Although G iglio’s mate riality standard is stated in g ener al terms and the Florida 1 6 Supreme Court cor

rec tly identified the standa

rd, that does not mea

n its “application wa s rea sonable.” Panetti, 551 U.S. at 953, 127 S. C t. at 2858. As the Supreme Court ha s expl ained with respec t to § 2254(d)’s unre asonable application prong : AEDPA does not require s t at e an d fede ral courts to wait for some near ly identical fac tual pattern befor e a leg al rule must be applied. Nor does AEDPA prohibit a fede ral court from finding an application of a principle unrea sonable when it involves a set of fac ts differ ent from those of the case in which the principle was announce d. The statute rec og nizes, to the contra ry , that even a g ener al standard may be applied in an unre asonable manner . I d. at 953, 127 S. Ct. at 2858 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 21pr in ci pl e fro m th e Supr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on s an d we h av e n otid en ti fie d a Supr em e Co ur t ca se wit h m at eri al ly ind is ti ng ui sh ab le fact s, we m us t d et erm in e whe th er t he st at e co ur t u nr eas on ab ly app li editto Guzm an ’s fact s. Be ll , 53 5 U.S. at69 4, 1 22 S. Ct. at18 50

. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t h el d t ha t “ [t]he fir sttwo pro ng s o f th e Gig li o te stare s at is fie d i n t hi s ca se .” Guzman III, 8 68 So . 2dat 5 05 ; Gu zm an IV, 94 1 S o. 2dat 1 05 0. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d i ts co nc lu si on : Bo th Cro ni n an d [Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r] te st ifi ed fal se l y a t t r ia l th at Cro ni n rece iv ed no be ne fit fo r he r te st im on y ag ai ns t Guz m an ot he r th an be in g ta ke n to a m ot el rat he r th an jail whe n sh e was arre st ed

. In fact , th e St at e pa id Cro ni n $5 00 , a si gn ifi can t su m to an ad m it te d crack co cai ne ad di ct an d pr os ti tu te
. The kn owl ed ge pr on g is sa ti sf ie d be cau se th e kn owl ed ge of th e de te ct iv e who pa id th e rewar d m on ey to Cro ni n is im pu te d t o t he pro se cu to r who tri edth e cas e. Guz m an III, 8 68 So . 2dat 5 05 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . W e ag ree wi th th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t’s co nc lu si on s wi th res pe ctto Gig li o’s fi rs t t wo p ro ng s. Here , th e
reco rdful ly sup po rts th atCro ni n a ndDete ct iv e Sy lv es te r te st ifi edfal se ly at Guz m an ’s tri al th atCro ni n re cei ve d n o b en efi t o th er t ha n b ei ng tak en to a m ot el

an d n otarre st ed , y etCro ni n was in factpa ida $5 00 reward . Alth ou gh Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r te st ifi edat t he po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng th atsh e co ul d n otreca ll if s he di sc lo se d t o t he tri al pro se cu to r th atsh e h adpa idCro ni n a$5 00 reward , Sy lv es te r’s kn owl ed ge of t hi s ev id en ce was im pu te d t o t he pro se cu to r. See Ky le s
22v. Whi tl ey , 51 4 U.S. 4 19 , 43 7– 38 , 11 5 S . Ct. 1 55 5, 1 56 7– 68 (19 95 ) (h ol di ng th at

a “ pr os ecu to r ha s a dut y

to lea rnof a ny favo rab le ev id en ce kno wn t o t he ot he rs act in g o n t he go ve rn m en t’s b eh al f in th e cas e, in cl ud in g t he po li ce. Bu t wh et he r th e p ro se cu to r su ccee ds or f ai ls in m eet in g t hi s o bl ig at io n . . . th e p ro se cu ti on ’s

res po ns ib il it y

forfai li ng to di sc lo se kn own , fav or ab le ev id en ce . . . is in es cap ab le .”). Howev er, aft er ca refu ll y

rev ie win g t he tra ns cri pt s fr om Guzm an ’s tri al an d

ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d t he tri al co ur t’s o rd ers , we ho ldth atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t’s m at eri al it y

de te rm in at io n was m or e th an jus t i nc orrect—i t was an ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co ur t pr eced en t. The st at e tr ia l co ur t i ni ti al ly fou ndth at“ th ere was [no t] a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y

th atth e fal se ev id en ce wo ul d p utth e who le cas e in su ch a di ffer en t li gh t as to un de rm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ve rd ic t.” On ap pe al , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t fo un d t ha t i ts pre ced en t wi th res pe ctto Brad y an d Gi gl io “ la ck edcla rit y ,” whi chres ul te d i n “ so m e co nf us io n a ndm erg in g o f th e Gig li o a ndBrad y
m at eri al it y

st an da rd s.” Gu zm an , 86 8 S o. 2 d a t 5 06 . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t th en cla rif

ie d t he two st an da rd s an d re m an de d t he cas e to th e tr ia l co ur t fo r
reco ns id erat io n o f Gig li o’s m at eri al it y st an da rd , whi ch itcla rif

ie d a s, “ whe th er

23th ere i s an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e
co ur t’s jud gm en t as th e fac tfi nd er i n t hi s ca se .” Id

. On re m an d, t he tri al co ur t fo un d t ha t t he Sta te ’s $5 00 pa ym en t t o C ro ni n
was im m at eri al un de r Gig li o. As no te d abo ve , th e tr ia l co ur t “ de te rm in [ed ] th at th ere [ was ] no reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e aff

ect ed th e jud gm en t o f th e [c]ou rt a ndth atth e St at e h adm etit s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th at th e fal se ev id en ce was “ ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t af

firm ed , reas on in g a s fo ll ows : The ci rcu it jud ge de ni ed Guz m an ’s cl ai m on th e gr ou nd s th at th e fal se te st im on y was no t m at eri al

. To affi rm th is de te rm in at io n, we ha ve to co nc lu de th at th ere is no reas on ab le po ss ib il it y t h a t th e fal se te st im on y of Cro ni n an d Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r reg ard in g th e $5 00 rewar d affe ct ed th e ve rd ic t
. Tha t st an da rd ha s be en m et he re. Fo r th e reas on s rel ie d up on by th e tri al co ur t, we co nc lu de th at th e St at e ha s es tabl is he d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e fal se te st im on y of th e witne ss es ha d no effe cton th e v erd ic t. The tri al co ur t fo un d Cro ni n’s cred ib il it y as a wit ne ss was am pl y im pe ach ed an d th at Cro ni n’s te st im on y in cri m in at in g Guz m an was in de pe nd en tl y co rro bo rat ed an d supp orte d at tri al

. Our o w n de no vo rev ie w of th e reco rd supp or ts th es e co nc lu si on s. In de ed , im pe ach m en t of Cro ni n was su bs ta nt ia l. Sh e te st ifi ed ab ou t he r crac k co cai ne ad di ct io n, nu m ero us a rr e s t s fo r pr os ti tu ti on , an d ag reem en t to te st ify ag ai ns t Guz m an in ex ch an ge fo r a le ss er ch arg e on pr os ti tu ti on . Sh e al so ack no wled ge d th at sh e to ld wit ne ss Garci a th at Guz m an ha d no t ki ll ed an y on e bu t th at sh e ha d li ed to th e po li ce in accu si ng Guz m an be cau se sh e h a d b e e n arre st ed an d th at sh e was an gry wit h Guz m an ov er hi s rel at io ns wit h ot he r wom en . T he jud ge al so rece iv ed ev id en ce th at th e St at e ha d pa id fo r a m ot el ro om an d m eal s fo r Cro ni n. [FN3 ] In li gh t of
24th is am pl e im pe ach m en t, t h e c i rcu it jud ge was jus ti fie d in co nc lu di ng th at Cro ni n[ ’s] an d Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r’s fal se te st im on y reg ard in g th e $5 00 rewar d was of “ li m it ed si gn ifi can ce” an d “ m erel y cu m ul at iv e an d imm at e r i a l

. ” W e ag ree wit h th is co nc lu si on . The ad di ti on of th e tru th fu l te st im on y ab ou t th e $5 00 rewar d wou ld no t h a v e m ad e a m at eri al di ffer en ce i n C ro ni n’s cr ed ib il it y to th e fi nd er o f fac t. FN3

. Not ab ly, du rin g th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e in it ia l post co nvi ct ion m oti on, Guz m an ’s de fen se co unse l re ve al ed th at , pr io r to tri al , Guz m an m ad e hi m aware of al le ga ti on s th at Cro ni n ha d rece iv ed th e $5 00

. Defen se co un se l ch os e no t to pu rs ue di sc ov ery or qu es ti on in g at tri al reg ard in g th e al le ga ti on s. Guz m an IV, 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05 0– 52 (fo ot no te om it te d)

. Lik e th e Dis tri ctCo ur t, we fu ll y reco gn iz e th atCro ni n was im pe ach ed du rin g h er t ria l t es ti m on y by defen se co un se l. See Guz m an , 69 8 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 13 31 –3 2. Bu t ev en tak in g t hi s i m pe ach m en t ev id en ce i nt o a cco un t, i t was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le forth e st at e co ur t t o c on cl ud e th atCro ni n’s im pe ach m en t was so co m

pl et e th at“ th ere i s n o re as on ab le po ss ib il it y th atth e fal se te st im on y reg ard in g t he $5 00 rewardco ul d h av e aff ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e fact fin de r.” Guz m an IV, 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05 1. As t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t o bs erv ed , a pa ym en t o f $5 00 is a si gn ifi can t

su m to an ad m it te d c rackad di ct . Guzm an III, 8 68 So . 2dat 5 05 ; s ee al so Guzm an IV, 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05 6 (An st ead , J., di ss en ti ng ). W e ag ree wi th th e Dis tri ct

25Co ur t’s co nc lu si on th atth e $ 50 0 p aym en t wo ul d h av e p ro vi de d “ subs ta nt ia l an d

sp eci fic ev id en ce o f Ms . Cro ni n’s m ot iv at io n t o l ie ag ai ns t [Gu zm an ]:” The $5 00 pa ym en t was m or e th an jus t ano th er av en ue of im pe ach m en t ag ai ns t an al read y di sc red it ed witne ss . The fact th at th e le ad d et ect iv e an d th e le ad wit ne ss twi ce de ni ed th e ex is te nc e of th e pa ym en t is at le as t a ta ci t adm is si on th at it was pe rcei ve d to ha ve rel ev an ce to a reas on ab le factfin de r vi ewin g t he cred ib il it y of t hi s wi tn es s. Guz m an , 69 8 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 33 2. Th e st at e co ur t’s co nc lu si on to th e co nt rary is ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le forsev eral reas on s. Fi rs t, we ar e m in df

ul th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t’s m at eri al it y de te rm in at io n a ls o re li edup on a fi nd in g t ha t Cr on in ’s tes ti m on y reg ard in g Guz m an ’s gu il t was in de pe nd en tl y co rro bo rat edan d s up po rte d b y ot he r ev id en ce. See Gu zm an IV, 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05 1. In supp or t, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt re li ed up on th e fo ll owi ng : [i]n pa rti cu la r, th e te st im on y of bo th Dr. St ei ne r an d Ro ge rs supp or ts th e c i r c u it jud ge ’s fin di ng . Dr. St ei ne r, th e m ed ic al ex am in er, supp or t e d Cro ni n’s tes ti m on y at tri al by te st ifyin g th at th e sa m ur ai swo rd an d th e su rv iv al kn ife co ul d ha ve cau se d th e vi ct im ’s in juri es . Ro ge rs , th e jail ho us e witne ss who sh ared a cel l wit h Guz m an , te st ifi ed th at Guz m an ad m it te d co m

m it ti ng th e cri m e. It is al s o u n d is pu te d th at , s ho rtl y aft er th e m ur de r, Guz m an so ld th e vi ct im ’s rin g to Le r o y G a ds on , a kn own drug de al er, fo r drug s an d cas h. Thi s ev id en ce of Guz m an ’s gu il t, who ll y in de pe nd en t of Cro ni n, supp or ts he r t es ti m on y . In li gh t of th is in de pe nd en t a n d c o rro bo rat in g ev id en ce, we co nc lu de th at th ere is no reas on ab le po ss ib il it y th at th e fal se te st im on y reg ard in g th e $500 re w ard co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e fac tfi nd er

26Id . Butwe m us t al so co ns id er t he cu m ul at iv e eff

ectof t he fal se ev id en ce fo r th e pu rp os es of m at eri al it y . Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 36 –7 n.1 0, 1 15 S. Ct. at15 67 n.1 0; Sm it h, 5 72 F.3dat 1 33 4. “ Co ns id eri ng th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce cu m ul at iv el y
m ean s ad di ng up th e fo rce o f itall an d wei gh in g i t ag ai ns t t he to ta li ty of th e
ev id en ce t ha t was in tro du cedat t he tri al .” Id . (em ph as is ad de d) . Thu s, we m us t al so co ns id er t he factth atRo ge rs was asev en -ti m e co nv ic te d fe lo n a ndreca nt ed be fo re t ria l, p ro vi di ng an affi da vi t u nd er o ath o n Au gu st26 , 19 92 , st at in g t ha t Guz m an “ ha d n ev er co nf es se d t o m e ab ou t t he cas e.” Si gn ifi can tl y , Rog ers was
aware of a ndha d a cces s t o Gu zm an ’s cou rt r eco rd s ab ou t t he cas e in hi s ce ll

. Als o, as ex pl ai ne d abo ve , Guzm an ad m it te d t o p os se ss in g a ndsel li ng Co lv in ’s rin g, b uttes ti fie d h e g otif fr om Cro ni n. Fu rth er, al th ou gh th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t v ie wedth e m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y as i m po rta nt , we m

us t al so
co ns id er t ha t “ th e m ed ic al ex am in er al so tes ti fie d t ha t t he vi ct im ’s wou nd s wer e ‘con si st en t wi th an

ykn ife th ree t o fo ur

in ch es at l eas t i n l en gt h o r kn ife -li ke ob ject’ an d t ha t h e was un ab le to id en ti fy th e ‘exac t weapo n t ha t m ay ha ve in fli ct eda pa rti cu la r wou nd .’ ” See Gu zm an , 69 8 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 33 5. Add it io na ll y , alt ho ug h t he de gr ee t o wh ic h C ro ni n m ay ha ve be en im pe ach edat t ria l i s re le va ntto th e m at eri al it y in qu iry, we em

ph as iz e “ th e eff

ect of th es e o th er m ean s o f im

pe ach m en t was no t, h owe ve r, to ren de r” ev id en ce o f

27Cro ni n’s re wardan d p erju ry cu m ul at iv e. See Ven tu ra, 4 19 F.3dat 1 29 1 n .9;

1 7 Uni te d S ta te s v . San fil ip po , 56 4 F .2d17 6, 1 78 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7) (“ The factth atth e hi st ory of awit ne ss sh ows th athe m ig htbe di sh on es t d oe s n otren de r cu m ul at iv e
ev id en ce t ha t t he pro se cu ti on pro m is edimm un it y fortes ti m on y . A j ury

m ay ve ry well gi ve gre atweig htto a pr eci se reas on to do ub t cr ed ib il it y when th e wit ne ss ha s b eensh own to be th e k in d o f pe rs on who m ig htpe rjure hi m se lf.” ); see als o 1 8 Bro wn v . W ai nwr ig ht , 78 5 F .2d14 57 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). In co nc lu di ng th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t u nr eas on ab ly app li edGig li o in th is cas e, we ack no wled ge th atAEDPA m od ifi edou r st an da rdforrev ie win g st at e co ur t d eci si on s o n l eg al is su es fro m de no vo to reas on ab le ne ss . Furt he r, we fu ll y ackno wled ge th atou r own pri orde ci si on s, “ ev en on e wit h aho ld in g d ire ct ly

on po in t, d oe s n otcle arl y est ab li sh fed eral law fo r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) pu rp os es .” All en v. Se c’y , Dep’t Co rrs ., 61 1 F .3d74 0, 7 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); R en ic o, -- - U.S. at -- -,
In Ventura , this Court denied a habe as petitioner’ s Gig lio claim after findingthe state 1 7 court’s r ejec tion of that claim was not contr ary to, or an unre asonable application of, c lear ly established fe dera l law. 419 F.3d at 1269. More spec ifically , Ventura deter mined that the state court’s c onclusion that Ventura ’s Gig lio claim was not materia l was not “‘obje ctively unrea sonable’ in lig ht of the extensive and powe rful cor roborating e vidence introduced a nd the substantial impeachment” of the witness. I d. at 1286. In so doing, V entura expressly rec og nized the context-specific nature of Gig lio claims. I d. Be cause Guzman’s case lacks “ extensive and power ful corr oborating ” evide nce a s demonstrated throughout this opi nion, the context in Guzman’s case is radica lly differ ent from Ve ntura. In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this 1 8 Court adopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 2813 0 S . Ct. at18 65 –6 6. Ou r pr e-AEDPA de ci si on s m ay , ho wev er, i ll us tra te ho w

cl earl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co ur t p rece de ntap pl ie s t o s im il ar fa ct s. Hartv. Att orne y Gene ral of F lo rid a, 32 3 F .3d88 4, 8 94 n.2 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . In thi s reg ard , Davi s v . Zant , 36 F.3d15 38 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ), pr ov id es a us efu l i ll us tra ti on . In Davi s, a c o- de fen da nt , who was t rie d jo in tl y with t he pe ti ti on er, h ad

co nf es se d t o t he m

ur de r, bu t t he tri al co ur t b arre d a dm is si on of t he co nf es si on be cau se th e co -d efen da ntwou ldno t b e te st ifyin g a t t ria l. Id . at 1 54 3– 46 . The pe ti ti on er—who ha d i ni ti al ly con fes se d t o t he m ur de r—t es ti fie d a t t ria l t o e xp la in why he n ow re can te d t ha t co nf es si on ; h e h adco nf

es se d t o s av e th e co -d efen da nt , bu t re al iz edth atth e co -d efen da nt ’s subs eque ntco nf es si on ren de redhi s ef

fo rt fu ti le . Whe n t he pe ti ti on er al lu de d t o t he ex is te nc e o f th e co -d efen da nt ’s

co nf es si on du rin g h is tes ti m on y , th e p ro se cu to r ex cl ai m ed“ th at ’s a li e”—

su gg es ti ng th atth e co -d efen da ntne ve r co nf es se d. Id . at 1 54 6. Th en , du rin g cl os in g a rg um en t, t he pro se cu to r rep eat ed ly int im at edth atth e d efen se ’s

reca nt at io n d efen se ha d b een th ou gh t up o n t he da y of h is tes ti m on y

—re in fo rci ng th e fal se ass ert io n t ha t t he co -d efen da ntha d n ev er co nf es se d. Id . at 1 54 7– 49 . To ob ta in th e § 22 54 writ , th e p et it io ne r was requi redto sh ow “ a rea so nabl e pr ob ab il it y

th at , bu t fo r th e p ro se cu to r’s st at em en ts , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g
wou ldha ve be en di ffer en t.” Id . at 1 54 5 (c it at io n o m it te d) . W e g ran te d t he writ , 29in pa rt b ecau se of we akne ss of t he pro se cu ti on ’s cir cu m st an ti al cas e an d t he

in te nt io na l n atur e o f th e p ro se cu to r’s m is sr ep res en ta ti on s. Id . at 1 54 9– 15 51

. Alt ho ug h Dav is in vo lv eda cl ai m of p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t, t he

m at eri al it y

st an da rdwe ap pl ie d i n Dav is is cert ai nl y m or e d em an di ng th an th e st an da rdforGig li o v io la ti on s. Un de r Gig li o, the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto a ne w tri al “ if t he re i s an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e affe ct edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury.” Agur s , 42 7 U.S. at10 3, 9 6 S . Ct. at23 97

. Thu s, the factth at , in a si m il ar fa ctua l ci rcu m st an ce, Dav is fou nderro r un de r th e
m or e d em an di ng st an da rdsh ed s l ig hton th e “ reas on ab le ne ss ” in qu iry un de r AEDPA. As dem on st rat edth ro ug ho utth is op in io n, Gu zm an ’s cas e, li ke Davi s’s, in vo lv es ev id en ce t ha t “ hi ng edon th e jury’ s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n,” Davi s, 3 6 F.3 d a t 1 55 0, i .e., whet he r th e jury bel ie ve d Gu zm an ’s ver si on of e ve nt s, o r whe th er i t b el ie ve d t he co nt rary inf eren ces ari si ng fro m

th e st at e’s ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce an d C ro ni n’s t es ti m on y . Becau se we fo un d i n Dav is , th atsi m il arl y fu nd am en ta l p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t co up le d wi th weakev id en ce wo ul d h av e
res ul te d i n adi ffer en t v erd ic t— as di ct at edby clear ly establ is he d S up rem e Co ur t st an da rd s—we lo gi cal ly w ou ldha ve to als o fi ndth atCro ni n’s an d S y lv es te r’s fal se tes ti m on y

“ co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud ge m en t o f th e jury.” It is th us
un reas on ab le foran ot he r co ur t t o l oo k a t the same evi de nc e an d c on cl ud e th at
30th ere i s n o “ reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury.” Seco nd , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t’s m at eri al it y de te rm in at io n
un reas on ab ly dis co un te d n oton ly the factth atCro ni n was th e St at e’s ke y witne ss in th e cas e, bu t al so th e fac t tha t h er cr ed ib il it y was c rit ic al to th e St at e’s cas e ag ai ns t Gu zm an . One n eedon ly read t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t’s as se ss m en t o f th e ev id en ce i n Gu zm an ’s di rectap pe al op in io n, as set for th ab ov e, supr a at5– 6, to co nf irm th atCro ni n’s t es ti m on y was c rit ic al to th e St at e’s cas e. Guzman II, 7 21 So . 2dat 1 15 7– 58 . Mos t i m po rta nt ly, Cro ni n’s t ria l t es ti m on y was e sp eci al ly si gn ifi can t b ecau se itdi rect ly con tra di ct edGuzm an ’s tri al tes ti m on y in a m an ne r th atcan on ly be co ns id eredm at eri al to th e que st io n o f Guz m an ’s gu il t b y fai r
m in de d ju ris ts . Guzm antes ti fie d o n h is own be ha lf a ndde ni edhi s p art ic ip at io n i n
an y res pe ctwit h t hi s ro bb ery–m ur de r. Id. at11 57 . As se t o utab ov e, al th ou gh Guz m an adm it te d t ha t h e p os se ss edan d s ol d C ol vi n’s ri ng , he c la im edhe go t i t fro m Cro ni n. Cr on in ’s tes ti m on y was i napp os it e in all m at eri al res pe ct s. Id .; s ee al so , Guzm an , 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05 6 (An st ead , J., di ss en ti ng ) (“ The bo tt om li ne is th atCro ni n was th e ke y

witne ss in th e cas e an d t he cred ib il it y of h er t es ti m on y
was cri ti cal to th e St at e’s cas e ag ai ns t Gu zm an .”). Bu t the st at e co ur ts fai le d t o
co ns id er t he reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atan ob jecti ve fact fin de r co ul d h av e
31reas on ab ly dis be li ev edCro ni n’s t es ti m on y be cau se of t he $5 00 rewardan d be cau se he r pr io r st at em en ts were qui te di ffer en t fr om what sh e sa idat t ria l, an d in st ead , gi ve n s uf

fic ie ntcred en ce t o Gu zm an ’s tes ti m on y to ha ve affe ct edth e jud gm en t o f th e fac tfi nd er. Mo reo ve r, th e cri ti cal na tu re o f Cro ni n’s t es ti m on y is

un de rs co redby the si m

pl e fac t t ha t t he Sta te ’s cas e co nn ect in g Gu zm an to Co lv in ’s m

ur de r was m os tl y

tes ti m on ia l. Fu rth erm or e, whi le th e rec or d i s n otcle ar ab ou t ex act ly whe n C ro ni n le arn edab ou t t he reward , th e rec or d i s cl ear t ha t o n Au gu st12 , 19 91 , Cro ni n t ol d la w–e nf or cem en t t ha t s he di d n otha ve an y in fo rm at io n abo utCo lv in ’s m ur de r. The reco rdis als o c le ar t ha t t he rewardwas p ub li sh edin th e n ews pape r on Aug us t 16 , 19 91 an d t ha t Cr on in ’s st ory ch an ge d a fte r no ti ce o f th e rewar d was pu bl is he d. Cro ni n fi rs t i m pl ic at edGuzm an as t he pe rp et rat orof C ol vi n’s 1 9

m ur de r on Nov em

be r 23 -2 4, 1 99 1. An d i t i s eq ua ll y cle ar t ha t Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r de po si te d t he rewardm on ey in to Cro ni n’s i nm at e acc ou nton Jan ua ry 3, 1 99 2, ju st da y s b efo re Cr on in tes ti fie d b efo re t he gra ndjury.

Cronin was interview ed by Detec tive Sylvester a

t the Imperial Motor L odg e on August 1 9 12, 1991, and did not implicate Guzman. On August 16, 1991, the State published in two local newspa pers a rew ard of

fer of $500 for

information about Colvin’s case . Duringthe evidentiar y hear ing, D etec tive Sylvester testified that she could not rec all if Cronin knew a bout the $500 rew ard at the time of her N ovember 23–24, 1991 statement.

32Giv en th es e in di sp ut ab le fact s, Gu zm an ’s def en se att orne y

co ul d h av e arg ue d t o t he fact fin de r th atCro ni n was m ot iv at edto ch an ge he r st ory an d fi rs t im pl ic at edGuzm an in Nov em be r 19 91 forth e rewar d m on ey . Furt he r, Guz m an ’s

co un se l co ul d h av e arg ue d t ha t t he ti m in g o f th e Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r’s de po si t o f th e rewar d m on ey

in to Cro ni n’s i nm at e acc ou nt , occ urrin g ju sta few d ay s b efo re Cro ni n’s g ran d ju ry

tes ti m on y , was an in cen ti ve for Cro ni n t o t es ti fy

fav or ab ly for th e St at e ag ai ns t Gu zm an . Mor eo ve r, Guz m an was d en ie d afai r op po rtu ni ty to im pe ach Cro ni n re ga rd in g n oton ly the factsh e was pa ida rewar d, b utth e ti m in g of th e o fferan d p aym en t o f th e rewar d, wh ic h c ou ldha ve supp or te d a n a rg um en t th atCro ni n’s ch an ge d s ta te m en t an d g ran d ju ry tes ti m on y

were m ot iv at edby the

rewar d. Thi rd , alt ho ug h t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t b ot h C ro ni n
an d Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r li edab ou t t he $5 00 rewarddu rin g t ria l, t he co ur t ei th er di d n otco ns id er o r un reas on ab ly dis co un te d t he im po rt o f th e fac t tha t b ot h Cro ni n a ndSy lv es te r te st ifi edfal se ly. Cf. Po rte r v. M cCu ll om , 13 0 S . Ct. 4 47 , 45 4 (2 00 9) (fi nd in g t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on , in th e co nt ex t o f an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m , was an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f th e ge ne ral Str ic kl an d s ta nd ard , wher e th e st at e co ur t “ ei th er d idno t co ns id er o r
un reas on ab ly dis co un te d t he m it ig at io n e vi de nc e ad du cedin th e p os tc on vi ct io n
33he ari ng ”). In th is reg ard , we agr ee wi th th e d is se ntof J us ti ce An st ead , when he

st at ed :
a rat io na l an d ob

jecti ve fact fin de r wo ul d no t on ly h av e co ns id ered th e factth atCro ni n, t he m os t i m po rta ntwit ne ss for th e St at e, was pa idfor he r te st im on y , bu t wou ld al so ha ve co ns id ered th e fact th a t b o t h th is cru ci al wit ne ss an d t he le ad de te ct iv e in th e cas e pe rjure d th em se lv es whe n th ey de ni ed un de r oa th th at an y co m pe ns at io n was pa id to Cro ni n. And , cri ti cal ly, it wou ld ha ve be en of es pe ci al co nc ern to th e fact fin de r th at th is cru ci al St at e wit ne ss ha d pr ev io us ly an d rep eat ed ly de ni ed an y kn owl ed ge of th e cas e an d on ly im pl ic at ed th e de fen da nt aft er th e St at e of fere d c om pe ns at io n t o h er. Guz m an , 94 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 05 6 (An st ead , J., di ss en ti ng ). Whi le th e st at e co ur t

co ns id eredth e fai lu re t o d is cl os e th e $ 50 0 re wardas t o C ro ni n’s t es ti m on y ,
ne it he r th e tr ia l co ur t o n re m an d, n orth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t o n re vi ew, ad dr es se d “ th e im

pa ctof t he in ab il it y

to im pe ach Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r co nc ern in g he r de ni al th atan y

pa ym en t h adbe en pro vi de d t o M s. Cr on in .” Guzman, 69 8 F

. Supp . 2dat 1 33 2. Gu zm an ’s “ co un se l was ne ve r gi ve n t he op po rtu ni ty to i m pe ach th e d et ect iv e co nc ern in g h er fa ls e te st im on y wit h re ga rdto th e p aym en t, o r to im pe ach he r reg ard in g h er h av in g p erm it te d t he ke y wit ne ss to gi ve fal se te st im on y un de r oa th be fo re t he co ur t i n t he tri al pro ceed in g.” Id. The st at e co ur ts ’ de ci si on s wer e o bjec ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th ey all bu t i gn or edth e im

po rta nc e o f Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r’s te st im on y an d wh atde fen se
co un se l co ul d h av e d on e wit h t hi s i m pe ach m en t ev id en ce. In de te rm in in g t he
34im

pa ctof t he Sta te ’s act io n i n s up pr es si ng fav or ab le ev id en ce, co ur ts sh ou ld

co ns id er h ow t he de fen se ’s kn owl ed ge of t he wit hh el d i nf orm at io n wo ul d h av e im pa ct edno t ju stth e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l, b utals o t he strat eg ie s, t act ic s,
an d d efen se s t ha t t he de fen se co ul d h av e d ev el op edan d p res en te d t o t he tri er o f fact

. Becaus e Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r was th e le adde te ct iv e, he r im pe ach m en t 2 0

wou ldha ve “ im

pu gn edno t o nl y

he r ve raci ty butth e ch arac te r of th e en ti re in ve st ig at io n.” Guzm an , 69 8 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 33 2. Th is wou ldha ve be en
co ns is te ntwit h Gu zm an ’s tes ti m on y th athe was n otin vo lv edin th e o ffen se an d

ev id en ce o f ot he r vi ab le su sp ect s. 2 1
See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 442 n.13, 115 S. Ct. at 1569 n.13 (“The de fense could have 2 0 further undersc ored the possibili ty that Be anie wa s Dy e’s killer through cross-e x amination of the police on their f

ailure to dire ct any

investigation ag ainst Be anie.) ; id. at 446, 115 S. C t. at 1571–72 (“Eve n if Kyles’s lawyer ha d followed the more conser vative cour se of lea

ving B eanie off the sta nd, though, the defe nse could ha ve examined the police to g ood eff ect on their knowledg e of B eanie ’s statements and so ha ve attac ked the r eliability of the investig ation in failingeven to c onsider B eanie ’s possible guilt and in tolerating(if not countena ncing ) ser ious possibili ties that incriminating e vidence had bee n planted.); id. at 447, 115 S. Ct. at 1572 (“B y demonstratingthe detec tives’ knowledg e of B eanie ’s af firmatively

self-inc riminating state ments, the def ense c ould have laid the f oundation for a

vigor ous argument that the police ha d been guilty of neg lige nce.” ). At Guzman’s trial both State and def ense w itnesses testified to fac ts which implicated 2 1 persons other

than Guzman in Colvi n’s murder . For example, state witness J ames Ya rborough, an employee of

the Imperial Hote l, testified that he broke up an alter cation betwe en Colvin and another hotel guest named James (not Guzman) in Colvin’s hotel room. In that incident, J ames enter ed Colvin’s room with an open knife and Colvin pulled his sword. Detec tive Sylvester testified that she obtaine d information duringher inve stigation that persons named H olt or Moore also had a n alterc ation with Colvi n in his hotel room in which a knife w as involved. De tective Sylvester a lso testified on August 12, 1991, the date Colvin’s body was found a

nd the police initiated their investiga

tion, Curtis Wallace wa s at the Imperial Hote l . On that date, be fore the police re lease d information that Colvin’s ring w as missing, Wallace told the police that if a r ing 35Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r te st ifi edab ou t t he th or ou gh ne ss of t he st at e’s

in ve st ig at io n, h er co nt actwit h i m po rta ntwit ne ss es in th e cas e (i nc lu di ng Ro ge rs
an d C ro ni n) , her

sea rch of Gu zm an ’s jail cel l, an d h er d eci si on to foc us th e 2 2 in ve st ig at io n e xc lu si ve ly on Gu zm an aft er Cr on in im pl ic at edhi m

in lat e Nov em be r 19 91 . For e xa m

pl e, du rin g t he fir stfou r m on th s o f in ve st ig at in g Co lv in ’s ho m ic id e—f

ro m Aug us t 1 2, 1 99 1 wh en hi s b od y was d is co ve redun ti l la te Nov em

be r 19 91 when Cro ni n fi rs t i m pl ic at edGuzm an—Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r te st ifi edth atlaw- en fo rcem en t “ co nt in ue d t o fo ll ow- up on an y in fo rm at io n t ha t

cam e in .” Furth er, dur in g t hi s t im e p eri od , Detec ti ve Sy lv es te r affi rm edth atth e po li ce h adno t “ fo cu se d o n Gu zm an as t he so le su sp ectto th e ex cl us io n o f

ev eryone els e.” Acco rd in g t o Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r, sh e p ur su ed“ al l l ead s” an d in te rv ie wed“ al l p os si bl e wit ne ss es ” b et ween earl y Aug us t an d No ve m

be r 19 91

. Bu t Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r de ni edth atsh e was “ ab le to de ve lo p a ny
su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce ag ai ns t an y on e th atwou ldgi ve [he r] caus e to arre stan y on e”

is miss ing, he probably

knew who c ommitt ed the c rime. Detec tive Sylvester testified that Roge rs contac ted her from the jail and indicated that 2 2 he wa s Guzman’s cell mate a nd had information to provide ag ainst Guzman. After interviewing Roge rs, Sylvester obtaine d and executed a sear ch wa

rra nt for Guzman’s jail ce ll where she found among st Guzm an’s be longing s a cor ner of an enve lope containingRoge rs’ mother’ s return mailing a ddress. This evide nce later be came important duringRoge rs’ testimony , in which he testified that Guzman confe ssed to him , to support his ex planation for why he sig ned a sw orn aff idavit that Guzman never c onfesse d to him—that Guz man knew where Roge rs’ mother lived and could g et to his family if he testified a g ainst him.

36be fo re Cr on in pro vi de d h er s ta te m en t ag ai ns t Gu zm an . This tes ti m on y fro m Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r un de rm in edGuzm an ’s alt ern at e su sp ectth eo ry of d efen se . Fo r th is reas on , to o, Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r’s te st im on y an d h er cr ed ib il it y

was im po rta ntto th e St at e’s cas e. In de ed , du rin g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng in th e st at e habe as pro ceed in g, Gu zm an ’s tri al att orne y affi rm edth athe wou ldha ve us edth e pa ym en t o f $5 00 to Mart haCro ni n t o i m pe ach Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r. Giv enth es e fact s, the st at e co urt’s fa il ur e to co ns id er t he im pa ctof t he un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e as to Dete ct iv e Sy lv es te r was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le

. Ourco nc lu si on th atth e st at e co ur t’s m at eri al it y de te rm in at io n was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le is bu tt res se d b y th e fac t t ha t t he st at e’s ev id en ce
co nn ect in g Gu zm an to th e cri m e was cir cu m st an ti al an d fa r fro m ov erwh el m in g. The re were no ey ewit ne ss es or u nb ia se d o bs erv ers who tes ti fie d a s t o t he m ur de rro bb ery. Guzm an ne ve r co nf es se d t o l aw-en fo rcem en t. Bo th wit ne ss es who te st ifi edth atGuzm an ha d c on fes se d, Cr on in an d R og ers , recan te d t he ir t es ti m on y aton e ti m e o r an ot he r pr io r to tri al . There was n o b lo odor f in ge rp rin ts on th e
swo rdreco ve redfro m

Co lv in ’s roo m . As pr ev io us ly not ed , th e m ed ic al ex am in er
was un cert ai n abo utwhet he r th e swo rdor Gu zm an ’s kn ife were t he actua l m ur de r weap on s; th us , th e St at e d idno t p ro ve th ateit he r Guz m an ’s kn ife or t he swo rd

was th e m

ur de r weap on . As a res ul t, Cr on in ’s andDete ct iv e Sy lv es te r’s te st im on y
37was th e cru x o f th e St at e’s cas e ag ai n Gu zm an , anditwas t hu s o bjec ti ve ly

un reas on ab le to di sc ou ntth e eff ectof b ia s o n t ha t cruc ia l b od y of e vi de nc e u nd er th e to ta li ty of ci rcu m st an ces in th is cas e. W e al so fin d i t s ig ni fic an t t ha t Gu zm an no t o nl y tes ti fie d o n h is own be ha lf attri al , bu t al so pre se nt edwit ne ss es an d o th erwi se ch al le ng edth e St at e’s

ev id en ce. Fo r ex am

pl e, Guz m an pre se nt edth e te st im on y of C arm el o Gar ci a, who te st ifi edth atCro ni n h adto ldhi m th atsh e h adli edto law en fo rcem en t re ga rd in g Guz m an ’s in vo lv em en t b ecau se sh e wan te d t o a vo idbe in g a rres te d fo r an
ou ts ta nd in g warran t. Mo reo ve r, th es e fac ts are re le va ntbe cau se th e m at eri al it y te stforBrad y

vi ol at io ns , of wh ic h Gi lg li o i s an ag gr av at edsp eci es , see Ham m on d, 58 6 F .3dat 1 30 6– 07 , is no t a s uf fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce t es t. Se e Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at42 5, 1 15 S. Ct. at15 66 ; s ee al so , Sm it h, 5 72 F.3dat 1 34 7 (s ta ti ng , inth e
co nt ex t o f a Bra dy m at eri al it y an al y si s, “ th e st an da rdth atis ap pl ie d i s n oton e o f

su ffi ci en cy

of e vi de nc e to co nv ic t).” In Kyles, t he Supr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d: A de fen da nt ne ed no t de m on st rat e th at aft er di sc ou nt in g th e in cu lp at ory ev id en ce in li gh t of th e un di sc lo se d ev id en ce, th ere wou ld no t ha ve be en en ou gh le ft to co nv ic t. The po ss ib il it y o f a n acqui tt al on a cri m in al ch arg e do es no t im

pl y an in su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s to co nv ic t. One do es no t sh ow a Brad y vi ol at io n by de m on st rat in g th at so m e of th e in cu lp at ory ev i d en ce sh ou ld ha ve be en ex cl ud ed , bu t by sh owi ng th at th e fav or ab le ev id en ce co ul d reas on ab ly be ta ke n to pu t th e who le cas e in su ch a di ffer en t l ig htas t o u nd erm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ve rd ic t.

3851 4 U.S. at43 4– 35 , 11 5 S . Ct. at12 56 6. Thus , eve n a ss um in g t he st at e co ur t

co ul d h av e d im in is he d t he si gn ifi can ce o f Cro ni n’s t es ti m on y to ob li vi on (whi ch it

co ul d n otha ve reas on ab ly don e fo r th e rea so ns de sc rib edab ov e), t he factth at th ere m ay ha ve be en su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c on vi ctis no t t he rel ev an t m at eri al it y qu es ti on . Mo reo ve r, we ha ve care fu ll y rev ie wedth e en ti re re co rd , exa m in edth e st at e
co ur t’s ar gu m en ts an d t he or ie s i n s up po rt o f it s d eci si on , andaffo rd edth e st at e
co ur t ev ery be ne fit of t he do ub t. Giv en all of t he se fact s, we h ol d i t was ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le forth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t t o c on cl ud e th atth ere was
no t an y reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e $ 50 0 re wardan d C ro ni n’s an d Det ect iv e Sy lv es te r’s pe rjury cou ldno t h av e aff ect edth e o ut co m e in th is cas e. W e fi nd

“ th ere i s n o p os si bi li ty tha t fa irmind edjuri st s co ul d d is ag ree t ha t t he st at e co ur t’s de ci si on ” was an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co ur t’s pr eced en ts reg ard in g t he kn owi ng pre se nt at io n o f fal se ev id en ce. See Harri ng to n, ---U.S. at---, 1 31 S. Ct. at78 6. Hav in g fo un d t he st at e co ur t’s d eci si on was a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, we fu rth er fi ndth atGuzm an ’s cla im is m eri to rio us fo r al l the reas on s d is cu ss edab ov e. Bu t t hi s d oe s n oten d o urin qu iry. W e m us t

ne xtco ns id er wh et he r Guz m an ’s Gig li o c la im ha d asubs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us
39effe cton th e o ut co m e o f hi s t ria l. Se e Bre ch t , 50 7 U.S. at63 7– 38 , 11 3 S . Ct. at 17 21 –2 2 (d ire ct in g h ab eas co ur ts to de te rm in e whe th er co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs at t ria l

“ ha d s ub st an ti al an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s
ve rd ic t” ) (quo ti ng Kot te ak os v. Un it edSta te s , 32 8 U.S. 7 50 , 77 6, 6 6 S . Ct. 1 23 9, 12 53 (19 46 )). Erro rs are h arm le ss wher e th ere i s s ig ni fic an t co rro bo rat in g
ev id en ce, Ma so n v . All en , 60 5 F .3d11 14 , 11 21 –2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; Gro ss m an v. McDo no ug h, 4 66 F.3d13 25 , 13 37 –4 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) , or wh ere e vi de nc e o f gu il t is ov erwh el m in g. Pre va tt e v . Fren ch , 54 7 F .3d13 00 , 13 05 –1 30 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8)

. Erro rs are h arm fu l, h owe ve r, whe n t he re ar e “ si gn ifi can t wea kn es se s i n t he St at e’s cas e ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt .” Id . at 1 30 6 (c it at io n o m it te d) . One s uc h weakne ss is wher e th e tr ia l b oi ls do wn t o aswea rin g m at ch be twee n t he pe ti ti on er’s an d S ta te ’s wit ne ss es . See Hil l v . Turp in , 13 5 F .3d14 11 , 14 16 –1 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . In t he same vei n, t he pe ti ti on er i s p reju di cedwhen th e St at e pr oc ur es it s k ey

wit ne ss by vio la ti ng th e p et it io ne r’s rig ht s. See Delg ui di ce v . Si ng le ta ry , 84 F.3d13 59 , 13 60 –6 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) (gr an ti ng th e wri t wh ere t he St at e’s reb ut ta l wi tn es s, a p sychi at ris t, i nt erv ie wedth e d efen da ntwit ho utad equa te

no ti ce t o d efen se co un se l, an d wh ere t ha t ev id en ce was th e St at e’s on ly evi de nc e ag ai ns t t he pe ti ti on er’s co nv in ci ng in sa ni ty defen se ). As we h av e p rev io us ly de m on st rat ed , th ere wer e si gn ifi can t wea kn es se s i n t he Sta te ’s cas e ag ai ns t
40Guz m an an d t he tri al bo il eddo wn es se nt ia ll y a cred ib il it y

co nt es t b et ween Guz m an on th e o ne si de , andCro ni n a ndSy lv es te r on th e o th er s id e, bu t the Sta te fai le d t o c orrectm at eri al ly fals e te st im on y of C ro ni n a ndSy lv es te r. After

co ns id eri ng th e en ti re re co rdin th is cas e, we can no t s ay wit h fa ir a ss ur an ce t ha t th e o ut co m e o f Guz m an ’s tri al was n otswayed b y th e Gig li o e rro r. Bu t ev en
as su m in g, ar gu en do , th e ev id en ce was m or e ev en ly bal an cedreg ard in g t he ha rm le ss ne ss of t he erro r, ou r “ gr av e d ou bt ” ab ou t t he ha rm le ss ne ss of t he erro r ba se d upo n t he reco rdco m pe ls us to rul e in Guzm an ’s fav or . See O’Neal v

. McAn in ch , 51 3 U.S. 4 32 , 43 5– 37 , 11 5 S . Ct. 9 92 , 99 4– 95 (19 95 ). As a re su lt , Guz m an is en ti tl edto a habe as rel ie f, in th is cas e a n ew tr ia l, o n h is Gig li o c la im

. The refo re, we aff

irm th e Dis tri ctCo ur t’s Ord er g ran ti ng Guzm an a ne w tri al on hi s Gig li o c la im

. 2 3 AFFIRMED.

As noted ea

rlier, we expressly

decide Guzman’s case on his Gig li o claim without 2 3 expressing a

ny opinion reg ardingthe re asonable ness of the state court’s de cision with respec t to his Brad y

claim. 41