## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 1403 D ARRYL A LLE N , P et it ioner-App el lant, v. N ED RA C HAND LER, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 02 C7631

—MarvinE . A sp en, Judge

.
A RG UE D J UL Y 8, 2008

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 11, 2009

B efore B AUER, C OFFEY, a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . C OFFEY, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e Gener alS tor e in J ol i et, I l l i n o i s , wa s th e s c e n e o fa n a r me d r o b b e r y o nth e n i g ht ofOctobe r 26 , 1 99 0, and the sto re cl er k o n duty Cheryl Sm i thso n i denti fi ed Darr ylA l l en as the perpetr ato r

— fi rs t f r o m a p h o t o g r a p h i c a r r a y a n d a l s o d u r i n gh i s t wo s t a t e t r i a l s . T he fi r s to fthe t wo t r i a l s e nd e d in a de a dlock ed j ury, but the s eco nd tr i alr esul ted with A l l en bei ng co nvi cted o far m ed robber y, wh i ch w as up hel d on appe al

. I n the peti ti oner ’ s ini ti alappealo fhi s co nvi cti on2 N o. 07

- 1403 he al l ege d that hi s t rial counselwas i neffecti ve f or el i ci tingt es ti m o ny fr o m Det ec ti ve F ar m err efer r i ngt o the defe nd ant’ s p os t-ar re st si l ence, and al so the pet i ti oner ar gued that hi s a pp el l ate co unsel was in effe cti ve f or failing to ra i se the i ssue oftr i alco unsel ’ s ineffecti venes s on di re ct a pp eal

. The sta te appell ate co urt rej ecte d each o f th ese argu m en ts, hold ing t h a t, even i f cou ns el’ s p erforman c e wa s de fi c i e nt, h e wa s n o tp r ej ud i c e d b y the t ri al counsel ’ s questi on be cause the e vi dence ofgui l t was o v e r wh e l mi n g . We a ffi r m.

I. Al l e n’ s s ec o n d j u r y t r i a l l a s t e d l e s s th a na d a y . As previ ousl y point ed out the stor e cl er k i denti fi ed the ar m ed ro b b er a nd duri ng herte sti m ony re fer re d to hi m as a f re quent custo m erand w ent on to expl ai n that he had vi si te d the s to r e o n t wo di ffer en t o cca sio ns o n the ni g ht ofthe rob b er y. S m i thso n’s te sti m ony al so re veal ed that th e ro b b e r w as u n m as ke d , w h ich affo rd ed h er am p le ti m e t o obs er ve and rec ogniz e him

. S he al so m enti oned th a t h e h a d b e e n a f r e q u e n t p a t r o n o f th e s t o r e . S he fur the r s t a t e d tha tthe u nmask ed r o b b e r di s pl a y e d a gun w hi l e s t a nd i ngwi thin a f o o to fh e r a nd di r e c t e d h er to gi ve hi m the m oneyi n th e ca sh r egi ste r. S hor tl y a fter the c ri m e, the w i tness S m i thso n i m m edi ate l y i denti fi ed A llen as th e a rm ed ro b b er d u rin g a p h ot o lin eu p an d ag ain at tria l. Ina d d i t ion to Sm ith so n ’s e ye w itn es s a c c ou n t, a vi deotape ofthe ro bber y was d isp l aye d to the j ury. Even though the pi cture s o n t h e vid eot ape fi l m were not of p er fect quali ty, theywere ofsuffi ci ent qual i ty to ass i stN o. 07

- 1403 3 th e jur y in su b st an tia tin g Sm i th so n ’s t es tim on y a s w ell as he r i d en tification of A ll en as the robb er. Fin ally , th e S t a t e a s p ro of of c on sc iou sn es s o f gu ilt o ff e r e d th e e v i d e n c e th atAl l e n fl e d t o G e o r g i a ab o u ttwo m onths afterthe cri m e. I t is welles tabl i shed that evi dence offl i g hti s a dmi s s ib l e a s a c i r c ums t a nc e t e nd i ngt o sho w a co nsci ousness o fgui l t. See Illin o is v. P u r s l ey, 67 2 N
. E
. 2d 1249, 1255 (1996). It is als o in te re st in g to n ot e th at d u rin g h is c ro ss -ex am ina ti o n o fthe i nv es ti g at o r, defen se c o uns el, a s di st i ng ui sh ed f r o m appe l l at e co uns el, e l i ci te d the f o l l o wi ng te st i m o ny co nc erni ngthe pos t- ar r es t que st i o ni ngo fAl l en : C ou ns el: O k a y . N ow , you said that you read M r.

A l l en the r i ghts offthe M i r anda f or m , corre ct? Far m er : That i s co rr ect. Counsel : Bu t y ou fi l l ed the answ er s o ut? Far m er : That i s co rr ect. Co un s e l : Okay

. I s n’ t i t a f a c t tha t M r . Al l e n r e fus ed

to answ erany questi ons? Farm er: H e r e fu sed to answ er qu estions i n referen c e t o t h e c as e i n w h ich I as ke d h im about. Cou ns el : Oka y . S o , he was n’ t co o per at i ngwi thy o u,

cor re ct? Far m er : That i s co rr ect. The j ur y r etur ne d a v erdi cto fgui l ty, a nd the j udg e se ntence d A l l en to f or ty- ei ght y ear s’ i m pri sonm ent.4 N o. 07

- 1403 On app eal, A l l en chal l enged the tr ial c ourt ’ s r efusalto i nstr uct the j ury on r obbe ry, a l ess er - i ncl ud ed offen se. H e a l so ar gued that the pr ese ntence i nvest i gat i on re p or t w as lim ite d be c au se th e p r o b a tio n offic er sh ou ld h av e in te rv iew ed m or e p eo p le. A l l e n u n d er m in ed th is conte nti on byr efusi ng to be i nt ervi ew ed orco oper ate i n the prepar ati on of the prese ntence re port . Fi nal l y, the defendant com pla i ned that the t ri alj u d ge abuse d his d iscretion w h e n s en ten cing h im to f orty-eight years i n pri son. The appell ate co urt rej ecte d thi s a rgum ent a s A l l en had bee n convi cted o fa num bero fcr i m es ( at l eas t tw enty othe r ar m ed robber i es)

— i ncl ud i ng a pri orar m ed r o b b e r y atth e s a me s t o r e . T h e l a t e s tr o b b e r y w a s c o mm i tte d w hi l e he w as on par ol e s ta tus. A l l en’ s co nvi cti on an d se n te n c e of for ty -eig h t y ea rs w er e a ffirm ed on ap p ea l. See A llen , 61 9 N
. E.2 d at 8 27. A l l en next b ro u gh t a m oti on f o r l ea ve to appe al, whi ch th e st at e su pr eme court d en ied

. P eop le v. A llen , 624 N
. E
. 2d 809 (I ll

. 1993). A l l en the n proc eeded w i th a seco nd r ou n d of po st co nv i ct i o n l i ti g at i o n i n the I l l i no i s co ur ts , a r g ui ng that hi s t ri alco unsel r endered i neffecti ve ass i sta nce by el i ci ting te st i m o ny co nc erni ng hi s po st
- ar r es t si l en ce , a nd th atpri or a ppel l at e co uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve i n n o t r ai sing t h is iss u e o n d ire c t a p p ea l. T h e s ta te ap p ella te co u rtd id not re ach the q u esti on o fwh ethertr i alco unsel ’ s e l i ci tati o n o fthe t es ti m o ny fel l o ut si de th e ran ge ofpr o fes si o nal l y c o mpe t e n ta s s i s t a n c e , a n d r a th e r f o c u s e d o n the pr ej udi ce p ro ng . Ov era di ss en t, the c o ur t uphe l d the d en ial o frelie f on th is iss u e, re as on in g t h at A llen co u ld no t ha ve b ee n pr ej udi ced be ca us e th e to ta l i tyo fthe evi dence of hi s gui l t w as “o ver w hel m i ng. ” Peop l ev.N o. 07

- 1403 5 A llen , N o. 3- 99- 9761 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. J une 11, 20 01) ( unp ubl i shed). The st ate appel l ate court’ s m aj or i ty expla i ned that S m i th so n’ s i dentifi ca ti o n o fAl l enwas b o thpr o m pt an d str ong because she had m or e than am ple o p p ortuni ty to o bs er ve the unmas k ed pe r pet r at o r a t cl o se r an g e, a nd al so r e me mb e r e d h i m a s a f r e q u e n t c u s t o me r o ft he sto re , and further m or e s he had oppo rtunit i es to obs er ve h im on tw o se p ar at e occ as ion s in c los e pr ox im ity (as little as on e fo ot ) on th e e ve n in g of t h e ro b b er y. Id

. at 5. The m aj or i ty add ed that the s urve i l l ance v i deo “t ended to corroborat e” Sm ithson ’s tes tim ony and that A ll en ’s fl i g ht and a r r e s ti n th e S t a t e o fG e o r g i a s o me t wo m onths afterthe ro bber y “tend[e d] t o show consci ousness ofgui l t. ” Id

. T h e st ate suprem e co urt aga i n denie d l eave to ap p ea l. P eop le v. A llen , 763 N
. E
. 2d 320 (I ll

. 2001). Subse quentl y, A l l en fi l ed a pet i ti on f orw rit o fhabea s cor pu s in federa l co urt. T h e d i str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed th at th e state ap p ell ate court’s ap p li cation of St r i ck l and w as n ot u n re as on ab le, an d th u s con tr ollin g. A l l e n c h all enges thatco ncl usi on her e.

II. W e a gr ee that St r i ck l and has r eas onabl y b een a pp l i ed to A llen ’s c laim of in e f f e c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. A f ed er alco urt m ay not gr ant a habea s co rpus peti ti on u n les s t h e s ta te c ou rt ’s a d j u d ica tio n of th e c laim “r esul ted i n a decis ion that was contr ar y t o, o r i nvol ved an unrea sonab l e a pp l i cati on o fcl ear l y establ i shed Fe deral l aw. ” 28 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4( d) ( 1)
. Underthe Anti te r r o r i sm an d Effecti ve Death Penal ty A c t ( A ED PA ) , i neffecti ve ass i s-6 N o. 07

- 1403 tance ofco unsel i s a m i xed questi on o fl aw and f act r e v i e we d deno vo wi tha s tr o ngpr es um pti o n tha t th e at to rn ey p er for m ed effe c t i ve ly. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Fu dg e, 325 F. 3d 910, 92 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03). T h e l aw go verni ngi ne ff ec ti ve a ss i st an ce c l ai m s, a nno unc ed i n St r ickl and, r equi r es th at A l l enmustde m o ns tr at e th at( 1) c o unsel ’ s per f or m ance fel l “o utsid e th e wide r ange ofpro fessi o na l l y c o m pet en t as si st an ce ” an d ( 2) “ th er e i s a r ea so nabl e pr obab i l i ty that, but f orco unsel ’ s unprofess i onal er r o r s , the r e s ul to fthe p r o c e e di ngwo ul d h a v e b een diff er ent. ” St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at 690, 69 4. The barf or es ta b l i s h i n gth a ta s t a t e c o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o ft he St r i ck l and sta nd ar d w as “unrea sonab l e” i s a hi gh o ne, and on ly a cl earer ro r i n apply i ng St r i ck l and w il l su p p ort a wri t o fhabea s co rpus. To dem onst ra te prej u d ice un d er S t r i c k l a nd , the peti ti onerm ust e stabl i sh “that th ere is a reason able prob abili ty th at, but for coun sel’s unpr o f es si o na l e r r o r s, the r es ul t o fthe proceedi ng w oul d have be en di ffer en t. A r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty i s a p robabi l i tys uffi ci en t to unde r m i ne c o nfi den ce i n the ou t c o m e .” Id. at 694. The st ate appel l ate co urt rej ecte d thi s cl ai m o n the m er i ts, hol ding that peti ti onerco uld not sa tisfy St r i ck l and ’ s pr ej udi ce pr o ng becau se overwhel m i nge vi den ce s uppo r te d hi s co nv i ct i o n. The pe ti ti oner a dva nc es thr ee o th erc ha l l en g es t o the sta te appell ate co urt’ s a dj ud i cati on o fh i s cl ai m s. I ni ti al l y, he argue s tha tthe c o ur tf a i l e d t o a pp l y the c o r r e c tl e g al stan d a r d f or prej ud ice, resulting in a de cision con trary to St r i ck l and

. S ec o nd, he cont en d s tha t, t o the e xt en t th e cour t a pp l i ed the cor re ct s tandard f orprej ud i ce under St r i ck l and, i twa s a n un r e a s o nab l e a pp l i c a t i o n o fthe l awN o. 07

- 1403 7 to the f acts of th e case. Fi na lly, he argue s tha t the cou rt did notpro perl y c onsi der hi s cl ai m thathi s ap p ell ate att or ney was i neff ecti ve.

A . A deci si on “con t r ary t o” Stri ckl and ’ s pr ej ud i ce pro ng. All ena r g ue s th atthe s ta te c o ur t’ s dec i si o n was “ co ntrary to” th e prej ud ice pron g of S t r i c kl and b ec au se , in a s s e s s i n gw h e th e r c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o r ma n c e p r ej u d i c e d h i m, th e c ou rtw ro te th at co u n se l’s a lleg ed err or “ d i d n ottip the s cal es ofj usti ce unf ai rl y in f avo r ofthe sta te. ” Altho ugh the c ou rt repeate dlyr efer re d to St r i ck l and, Al l enc o ntends thatthe sta te appell ate co urt’ s use o f it s “scal es of j u st ice ” la n gu ag e ra ise d h is b u rd en of p ro of, es se n t i ally re quir i ng hi m to show that itis “m or e li kel y than not” that h i s a t t o r n e y ’ s d e fi c i e n tp e r f o r m a n c e a l t e r e d th e o u t c o me of the ca se

— a s tandard the Suprem e Cour t e xpli ci tly r ej ec te d i n St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at69 3. A llen co n c ed es in h is re p ly b rie f th at h e w aiv ed th is ar gu m en t by failin g to ra ise it in th e d ist r i c t co u rt
. See O br ie cht v. R aem is ch , 5 17F
. 3d 48 9, 4 93 ( 7th Ci r . 2 008). The a r g u me n t, e v e n i fp r o p e r l y r a i s e d , i s m er i t l e s s . As re lev an t here, a sta te cour t’ s deci si on i s “ contr ar y t o” f edera l l aw ifit i s “substa nti al l y d i ffer ent” f ro m o r “opposi te to” r el evantS up re m e Cour t pr eceden t. Wi l l i am s v. Taylo r, 5 29 U. S
. 36 2, 40 5 ( 20 00 )
. No do ubtthe r e i s a se m an ti c di ff er ence between the “ti pp i ng the sca l es ofj usti ce” st an d ar d an d th e a c tu al St r i ck l and te st. B ut the r e i s no r ea so n t o thi nktha t the st an dar d i s su bs ta nt i al l y di ffer en t8 N o. 07

- 1403 f ro m the St r i ck l andte s t, n or that i t is th e equ ivalent of a “m or e l i kely than not” st andard. “Ti pp i ng the sca l es ofj usti ce unf ai rl y” i s a vagu e m eta phor that l acks an y o bv i o us c o nne ct i o n t o a ny l egals ta nda r d. The par ti es ha ve no t i den ti fi ed a so ur ce f o r th e l an gu age, b ut w e no te that i t i s cur ren tly u sed i n I l l i noi s ca ses to des cr ibe the s ho wi ngo fpr ej udi ce r equi r ed unde r the st at e’s “p lain err or ” t es t. Se e, e . g. , P eop le v. Pia t kows ki, 87 0 N
. E.2 d 4 03, 411 ( I l l

. 20 07) ( al l owing re vi ew o funprese rv ed er ro r, reg ar d les s o f its se riou sn es s, ifi t is “c lea r or ob vio us ” an d “ th e ev i den ce i s s o c l o se l y b al an ce d tha t th e er ro r al one thre at en ed to ti p the s cal es ofj usti ce a gai nst the defendant

. ”)
. That m i ght s ugges t that the l anguage is m ore akin to a “clear proba bil ity” stan d ard , bu t it’ s i m possibl e t o know

— not only beca use the I l l i noi s co urts to date have not sai d so, but because the l anguage had not been used at t h e tim e of th e state ap p ell ate cou rt’s dec i si o n i n 20 01
. Gi ve n thi s ambi g ui ty, a l o ngwi ththe fact th at earli er i n its opin ion the I ll inois a p p ell ate cou rt c i t e d St r i ck l and, a s ingl e r efer ence to “ti pp i ng the sca l es” d oes not de m ons trate t ha t the cou rt ap p li ed a stan d ard c on tr ar y t o c lea rly es ta b lish ed fed er al la w . Ra th er , “it is m or e l i kely th at the c ourtst ate d i ts concl usi on im p re c ise ly th an th at it ap p lied a d iffer en t s ta n d ar d .” Sta nley v. B a rtley, 46 5 F .3 d 81 0, 81 3 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); see E ck stein v . Kin gsto n, 460 F.3d 844, 850-51 (7th Cir. 2006).

B . A n “u n rea s on ab le a p p lic atio n ” of Stri ckl and ’s prej ud i ce pr ong. A l l en al so conte nd s that the s tat e a pp el l ate co urt unreas o nab l y appli e d St r i ck l andin c on c lu d in g t h at th e e vi-N o. 07

- 1403 9 d en c e s u p p or tin g h is c on v ict ion w as “o ve rw h elm in g.” H e a l l ege s that the st ate ’ s s i ngl e- eye w i tness cas e cou p led w ith th e p r io r m istri al show that the j ud ge’s ver dictwas a c l ose cal l

. A nd he a rgues that, bec ause the c ase hi nged on S m i thso n’s i denti fi cati on, Detec tive Far m er ’ s t est i m ony that he was si l ent a nd uncoo perat i ve w h en asked abo ut the cri m e m i ght ha ve el i m i nated any r eas onabl e doubt i n the j uror s’ m i nd s. A sta te cour t’ s deci si on i s “an unreas onabl e ap p lication” offedera l l aw i fthe cour t “ i denti fi es the c or re ct govern ing legalprinc iple” from the Su p rem e C ou rt’s deci si ons bu t “ unreas onabl y a pp l i es that pri nci ple to the f acts o fthe pri sone r’ s ca se. ” Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U .S. a t 413. A n “u n re as on ab le a p p lica ti on ” is on e t h at is “n oton ly er ro neous, but obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e, ” Yarb or ough v. G entry, 540 U
. S. 1, 5 ( 2003 ) , wh i ch i n turn m eans “so m eth in g like lyin g w ell ou ts id e t h e b ou n d ar ies of p er m iss ible diff er ences ofo pini on, ” Jac ks on v. Frank, 34 8 F
. 3d 658, 662 ( 7th Cir
. 2003 ) ( ci tat i on and quot ati on m ar ks o m i tted)

. I n other w or ds, “a habea s peti ti onerm u st s h ow that th e s ta te co u rt ’s d ec isio n u n re as on ab ly a p p lied cle ar ly es ta b lish ed Su p re m e C ou rtp re c ed en t b y u n re as on ab ly extend i ng a rul e t o a co ntext where i t s houl d not hav e appli ed orby unrea sonab l y r efusi ng to exte nd a ru le to a conte xt wh er e i t s h ou ld have a pp l i ed. ” Virs ni e ks v. Sm it h , 521 F.3d 707, 713 (7th C ir. 2008). W e ar e o f t h e op inion tha t the state ap p ell ate cou rt r e a s o nab l y a pp l i e d St r i ck l andwh en i t co ncl ud ed that th e ev i den ce pr es en te d a g ains t All enwas c o m pel l i ng en ou gh to h o l d th at h e w as n otp rej u d ice d by h is10 N o. 07

- 1403 att or ney’ s e l i ci tat i on o f Farm er ’ s t est i m ony. A l though th e case aga inst A ll en rel ied p rim aril y on Sm it h son ’s eye w i tness i d enti fi cati on, thati denti fi cati on was not onl y r el i abl e but ver y s tr ong. S h e h ad an o pp or tuni ty to obs er ve the unm ask ed r obber at cl ose r ange, fi nger ed A llen w ith ou t h es ita tio n in a p h ot og ra p h ic a rra y a s w ell as d u rin g h er te st i m o n y a t t w o t ria ls, an d id en tifie d h im as a fr eque ntc us to m er . Th e s ur ve i l l an ce v i deo , mean w hi l e, cor ro bor ate d he r acco unt of the ro bber y. True, th e v i de o o fi t s e l fwa s n o to fs uffi c i e ntc l a r i t y t o al l ow the j ury to i nd epen d en tly i denti fy the unm ask ed robber as A l l en, but the v ideo’ s t echni call i m i tat i ons did not und er m i ne S m i thso n’s acc ount; theysi m plycould not fu lly c or ro b or at e it . M ea n w h ile, D et ec tiv e F ar m e r ’ s te st im ony that A l l en di d not r esp ond and w as uncooper ati ve w hen questi oned abo ut the cri m e, w h ile unh el pfulf or Al l en’ s d e f e ns e , wa s b o th s ho r ta nd b r i e f

. Ne i the r s i de re fer e n c e d th e t es tim on y d u rin g c los in g a rg u m en ts
. See Bieghl e rv. M cBr i de, 389 F.3d 701 , 705-07 (7th C ir. 2004); Spl ung ev. Parke, 1 60 F.3d 36 9, 37 2-7 3 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). In l i g hto fthe t o ta l i tyo fthe w ealth ofe vi den ce c o nc erni ng the pet i ti oner ’ s guil t, i t i s e vi dent fro m the re cor d that th e at to r ne y ’ s que st i o ns t o De te ct i ve F ar m erdi sc l o sing A l l en’ s pos t- ar re st s ilence did notti p the s cal es ofj usti ce u n f a i r l y i n f a v o r o fth e S t a t e . F u r th e r mo r e , e v e n i fwe w er e t o hol d tha t the at torney’ s cr oss - exam i nati on was obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e, herr epres entat i on was not i nef f e c t i v e b e c a us e the de fe nd a nt wa s no t pr ej ud i c e d b y the t est i m ony. N o r wi l l we dr a w a nyi nfe r e nc e fr o m Al l e n’ s i ni ti al m i str i al, wh i ch co uld have bee n the re su l t o fa var i etyo fN o. 07

- 1403 11 ci rcum sta nces that ar e i rr el evantto o ur con sid er ati on o f pr ej udi ce . Al th o ug h the f ac t o fa pr i o r mis tr ia l might c on c eiv ab ly g i v e s om e s u p p or t t o t h e d efe n d an t’s cla im that the c ase ag ai nst hi m was w ea k, i t doe s no t, o n i ts own , sho w thatan e rr orwas outco m e- deter m i nati ve. Com pareAdam s v. Be r t r and, 453 F. 3d 428, 43 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) (attorne y’s f ail ure to pu rsu e w itness w ith ex c u lp atory tes ti m ony w as prej ud i ci aler ro r w h er e evi dence w as “r el ati vel y thi n” and codefendant w ho ca l l ed w i tness re c eiv ed m ist ria l), w it h Tolive r v. H ulick, 47 0 F
. 3d 1204, 1208 (7 th Ci r. 20 06) ( pri orm i str i ali rr el evantto sho w pr eju dice fro m tr i alco urt’ s r efusalto l et defe nd ant cr oss exam i ne pri nci pal witnes s about i m m i gr ati on s tatus, w here de fen dant confess ed and w i tness ’ s t est i m ony w as str ong)
. Each tr i ali s a di stin c t event w i th m any nuances that tr anscr i pts ca n n ev er full y c apture; we re fuse t o d r a w a n y c o nc l u s i o n s b a s e d o n th e me r e f a c tth a tt wo diff er ent eve nts produced tw o differ ent re sul ts. B ecause th e e vid en c e o f A llen ’s g u ilt is m or e t h an su b s t a n tia l, th er e is n o re as on to d w ell on h is p rior m ist ria l.

C . I n eff ective assistan ce of app ellat e cou n sel. Fi nal l y, A l l en cl ai m s that hi s a pp el l ate at torn ey w as i neff ecti ve i n f ai l i ng to ar gue hi s S t r i c k l andcl ai m . W hen ana ppel l at e co uns elo m i ts “ a si g ni fi ca nta nd o bv i o us iss u e . . . [t h e c ou rt ] w ill d ee m h is p er for m an c e d efic ien t.” M as on v. Hanks , 9 7 F. 3d 88 7, 8 92

- 93 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6)
. And i fr ai singthe i ss ue “ m ayha ve r es ul te d i n r ev er sa l o fthe c on vi cti on, or an or der f or a new tr i al, [ the cour t] w ill deem the l ack ofeffecti ve assi sta nce prej ud i ci al

. ” Id. (i nt erna l citations an d qu otations om itted ).12 N o. 07

- 1403 I n b o ththe I l l i no i s appel lat e co ur t as wel l a s th e di st r i ctc o ur t, Al l en ’ s cl ai m was r ej ec te d o n the grou nd s tha t A lle n w a s not p rej ud iced by his tri al attorney’ s e rr or, and thus a pp el l ate cou n se l co uld nothave been i neff ecti ve i n f ai l i ng to r ai se the a rgum en t. A l l en chal l enges thi s co ncl usi on, not i ng tha t hi s ineffecti veass i sta nce cl ai m sho uld or w oul d have be en j ud ged und era deno vo sta nd ar d ofr evi ew had i t been r aise d on d ire c t a p p ea l. Se ePe opl ev. Bai ley , 8 7 4 N .E .2d 94 0, 94 5 (Ill. A p p . Ct. 20 07)
. But on pos tco nvi cti on r evi ew the sta te appell ate co urt expli citly r ej ecte d the s tat e’ s wai ver ar gum ent and e val uated the St r i ck l and cl ai m “o n i ts m er i ts, ” a pp l yi ng deno vo r e v i e w. A FFI RMED .

R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e, di ssen ti ng . The r i g htt o c o unsel

— to eff ecti ve counsel

— en su r es a f ai r tr i al byr equi r i ng that counselvi gor ousl y a dvance a defe nd ant’ s cl ai m o f in n oc en c e. Se eGi de on v. Wai nwr ight, 372 U
. S. 33 5, 34 4 (19 63 ); St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at68 4- 86. But her e cou n selnot on ly fa iled t o d efe n d D ar ry l A llen a t a ll sta ge s o f h is t ria l, counselactual l y ha rm ed hi m by el i ci ti ng te stim ony f ro m th e a rre st in g off ice r, Jos ep h Fa r m e r , th at A llen sa id no thingt o de f e nd h i m se l fa ft e r h i s a r r e s t
. T he s t a t e a p-N o. 07

- 1403 13 p ella te co u rth eld th at A llen w as n o t p r eju d ice d by th is er r o r, and the maj o r i tya g r ee s. Be ca us e Ib el i ev e th atthe s t a t e a pp e l l a t e cou r tu nr e a s o nab l y a pp l i e d St r i ck l andin w hat was es senti al l y a o ne- w i tness c as e, Iam co m pel l ed to diss ent. Ij oi n wi ththe maj o r i ty ’ s ho l di ng s i n s ec ti o n I I ( A) an d II(C ) regard ing A ll en ’s argum en t tha t the state cou rt appli ed the w ro ng st andard to hi s cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o ftr i aland appel l ate co u n sel

. But Ipartways wi ththe maj o r i ty in s ec ti o n I I ( B) , whi chho l ds th atthe st at e ap p ella te c ou rt d id n ot u n re as on ab l y a p p ly St r i ck l andi n concl ud i ng tha t the ev i dence ag ai nst All en w as “o ve rw h elm in g.” I c on c lu d e t h at t h e s ta te co u rtd id unreas onabl y a pp l y St r i ck l andin t h is re ga rd . I r e a c h th is concl usi on e ven though Iag re e that the te sti m ony ofan eye w i tness l i ke Ch er ylS m i thso n can be s u ffi ci ent t o a f f i r m a c on vic tio n . S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s ex re l
. Ha mp t o n v. Lei bach , 347 F. 3d 219, 255 ( 7th Cir
. 2003 ) ( hol d in g t h at eve n vul nerabl e e yewitness tes tim ony can be “m or e than suffi ci ent to c onvict ”)
. A s the m aj or i ty ri ghtl y points o ut, S m i th so n o bs er ve d the r o bb era t cl o se r an g e, s he fin ge re d A llen w ith ou t h es ita tio n in a p h ot og ra p h ic ar ra y a nd attr i al, and she sai d she had se en hi m befor e. Bu t the r el evanti ssue here i s no t the suffi ci ency of evi dence, but w hetherS m i thso n’s test im ony o verw helm inglysu p p or ts a c on vic tio n . I t d oe s n ot
. Se eKr i s tv. EliLi l l y & Co. , 8 97F
. 2d 29 3, 2 97( 7th Ci r. 1 990) ( no ting th at co n fid en c e in a m em or y d oe s n otn ec es s a r ily su p p or t its a c c u ra c y); E liza b et h F . L oft u s e t a l., E yew itness Tes ti m ony: Civil and C ri m inal § 4-14 (4 the d. 2 00 7) ( no ting14 N o. 07

- 1403 th ata v i ct i m c anc o nfus e r ec en t ac qua i nt an ce s wi ththe perpetr ato r ofa cri m e)
. The ev i dence ag ai nst All en was parti cul ar l y wea k: The sur vei l l ance v i deo

— th e state’s onl y physi calev i dence

— d oes not co rroborate Sm ithson ’s te st i m o ny th at th e per pet r at o r ha d en te r ed an d l eft the sto re sho rt l y b efo re the ro bber y, and the vi deo was not clear enou gh to sup p ort her iden tification. T he state’s onl y o therev i dence

— tes ti m ony i ntended to show that A l l e n fl e d th e s t a t e a ft e r h e c o m m i t t e d th e c r i me

— w as m eag er : unrem ar kabl y, A l l en was f ound in A tl anta, w here hi s s i ste r l i ves, duri ng the Chri stm as hol i days. W e h av e re p ea te d ly h eld th at on e e ye w itn es s’s te st im ony such as Sm i thso n’s was not “so o ver w hel m i ng tha t th e o ut co m e o f th e tr i al was a f o r egone co nc l us i o n, ” Ham pt on , 34 7 F .3d at25 5; see Wrigh t v. G ram ley, 12 5 F.3d 103 8, 1043 ( 7th Cir. 1 997) (des cribing as “w eak” sta te’s ca se r e l y i n ga l mo s te x c l u s i v e l y o n t e s t i mo n y o ft wo ey ew itn es se s); Un i t e d S t a t e s ex r e l
. F r e e man v . La ne, N o. 89 C 4642, 19 90 W L 7 0558 at* 6 ( N
. D. I l l

. M ay 14, 19 90) ( evi dence ofgui l t no t o ver w hel m i n g w here co nvi cti on was b as ed o n t es ti m o ny o fl o ne e y ewi tn ess and no p h ys ica l ev id en c e c or ro b or at ed w itn es s’s te st im on y), aff’d, Fre e m an v. La ne, 962 F .2 d 1 2 52 (7t h C ir. 19 92 ); see also Ande rs on v. Johns on , 3 3 8 F
. 3 d 3 8 2 , 3 9 3

- 9 4 ( 5 th Ci r . 20 03) ( d e s c r ib i ng a s “ r e l a t i v e l y we a k ” c a s e r e l y i n go n t wo ey ew itn es se s’ t es tim on y); Tow ns v. Sm it h , 395 F. 3d 251, 26 0- 61 ( 6th Ci r. 20 05) ( describi ng singl e ey ew i tness ’ s s haky iden tification as “sc an t” evid en ce of defen d an t’s guilt)

. W i th n o ot h erev i dence l i nki ng All en to the cri m e, an d wi ththe v i deo su rv ei l l an ce no t co r r o bo r at i ngN o. 07

- 1403 15 S m i th so n’ s i den ti fi ca ti o n, Detect i ve F ar m er ’ s te st i m o ny that A l l en w as uncooper ati ve and did not re spond to posta r r e s tqu e s t i o n i ng a c q u i r e d u n d e s e r v e d i mpo r t a n c e . As th e S upr eme Co ur t ex pl aine d i n U nite d Sta te s v. Hale, 4 2 2 U. S
. 1 7 1 , 1 8 0 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , “ the j ur y i s l i k e l y t o a s si gn m uch m or e wei ght t o the defendant’s pre vi ous sil ence than i s warr anted. ” All en’ s co unsel w as i ncom petent f or el i ci ti ng thi s t est i m ony because i ts only probabl e e ffect w as to sw ay the j uror s t o fi nd guil t. W i thout evi dence ofA l l e n’ s po s t
- a r r e s t s i l e nc e , the j ur y wo ul d ha v e ha d t o deci de w hetherS m i thso n’s i denti fi cati on wa s accurat e and str ong enough t o convi ct

— ana r d uo us ta sk

. But Farm er’s testim ony of A ll en ’s un coop e rative beh avior, and his r efusalto answer ques ti ons re l ate d to the c ase , c om m u n ica te d to th e jur y t h at h e w as co n sc iou s o f h is gu ilt

— a cr i m i nal with s om ethi ng to hi de. Und e r the s e c i r c ums t a nc e s , i t i s no t r e a s o nabl e t o des cr ibe the c as e ag ainst A l l ena s so o ve r whel m i ng th at t h ere i s no t a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty that, but f or co uns el ’ s une xpl aine d de ci si o n t o prob e th e ar r es ting o ffi c e r ab o u tA l l e n ’ s p o s t
- a r r e s ts i l e n c e , th e o u t c o me w oul d have be en di ffer ent. Ind ee d, on a nal ogo us f acts w e hav e co ncl ud ed that t wo eye w i tness identi fi cati o ns

— one by a witness w ho pre vi ousl y knew the defend ant

— d id n ot con stitut e evide nc e of su ch an overw hel m i ng char acte r th at i t co uld s ustai n a c onvi cti on w he re the p rosecu tion ha d com m en ted on the d efend an t’s post- ar re st si l ence . See U ni t e d S t at e s ex re l
. Ros s v. Fike, 534 F.2d 731, 734 (7th Cir. 1976). I n f act, i n the earlie r tr i ali n w hi ch the sam e e vi dence w as prese nted abs ent the ev i dence ofpost
- ar re st si l ence16 N o. 07

- 1403

no g ui l tyv er di ctwas r eached a nd the t r i ale nde d i n a m i str i al

. Giv en th e li m i ted ev i dence ofgui l t in thi s ca se, it w as an un rea s o n a ble app li cation of St r i ck l andto h old that the e vi dence w as ove rwhelm i n g and , ther ef or e, that p rej u d ice w as n otsh o w n . A c c or d in gly , Ires p ec tfu lly diss ent.

2- 11- 09