NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION Fi le Name: 10a074 9n.06 06- 4329 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IX TH C IR CU IT EUGENE W OODARD, Peti ti oner-A ppel lee , v. BETTY MI TCH ELL, W arden, Res pondent -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NI TED ST ATE S D IS TR IC T C OU R T F ORTHE NO RTH ER N DI STRIC T OF OH IO

Before: MERRITT , DAUGHTREY, and MOORE, Circuit Jud ges. Martha Craig D aughtre y , Circuit Judge. In this capita l case, W arde n Bet ty Mitchell appeal s a condit ion al g ra nt of habeas reli ef to pet it ion er Eug ene W oodard, a pr is on i nmate on Oh io’ s d eath ro w , pursuantto 28 U .S.C . § 2254. The di str ic t c our t’ s o rd er w as pr emis ed on it s fin din g thattr ial co unsel rendered inef fecti v e as si sta nce in the p enal ty phase of W oodard’s state cour

t tri al by fail ing to inv est ig ate a nd presentrele v ant mi ti g ati ng ev ide nce, after the jur

y found W oodard g uil ty

of ag g ra v ated murde r in the c ommis si on of w hat w as ess enti all y

a car-j ack ing

. The re spond ent conte nds, f irst, that the re i s i nsuffici ent proof upon w hic h to find th at c ounse l’ s p er formance w as defici ent a nd, s econd , t hat a ny a d d it io n a l e vid e n c e o f t h e p e t it io n e r’ s “fa m i l i a l a n d so c ia l h is t o ry” co u ld n o th a ve est abl is hed preju dic e, becaus e it w as “no t of a different st re ng th and chara cte r” from t he miti g ati ng ev ide nce off ered by W oodard’s attor ney s. The respon dent thus arg ues that the06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 2 - p e t i t i o n e r

h a s f ail ed to m e e tt h e w e l l - r e c o g n i z e d tw o - p ro n g s t a n d a rd o f Strickland v. W ashi ngton , 466 U.S. 668 (19 84), an d urges us to reverse t he jud gmen t of the district cour t. W e, on the other

hand, co ncl ude t hat t he di str ic t c our t di d noter r in g ra nti ng condi ti onal reli ef in t his ca se, and w e the re fore affirm the j udg ment of thatco urt.

I. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND W oodard w as charg ed i n a s ix -c ount ind ic tment w it h premedit ated m u rd e r and felony murder i n the deat h of M ani Ak ra m. B oth t he ag g ra v ated -m u rd e r count s c ar ri ed d e a th -p e nal ty

sp eci ficat ion s u nder

Ohi o l aw . He w as als o c harg ed w it h ag g ra v ated robb ery , receivi ng stolen pro pert y, a nd two count s of arson, e ach wi th a f irearm spec ific ati on. Fol low ing a w eek- lon g tr ial , W oodard w as conv ic ted b y a j ur y of all ch arg es ex ceptarson. Ev i de nc e att r ial e stab l i s he d th atW oo da rd an d th r ee o f hi s fr i en ds j oi ne d s om e other y oung men in an inn er-c ity nei g hbor hood in Cl ev ela nd in June 1990 to g o “ g aff li ng .” Accordin g to the state me nt of fact setout by the Ohio Supre me Court, “‘g af f ling’ is a term used to describe the actof forcibly remo v ing peo ple from the ir cars to rob th em .” Sta te v. W oodard , 623 N .E.2 d 75, 76 ( 1993)

. The firs t int ended v ic ti m they ac cos ted mana g ed to outr un th e ass ail ants ’ car , w hic h w as it sel f a sto len v ehi cl e tha t ov er heated as a resul t of the c hase. The g ang then abando ned t hat c ar , s tol e anot her one from a ne ar by

par ki ng lot , and w ent after thei r sec ond inten ded v ic ti m, Mani Akra m. The ensui ng car- jac ki ng w as acc ompli shed at t he c ostof Akram’s l ife – h e w as shotand then left for dead i n the st re et06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 3 - a f t e r W o o d a rd a n d t h e o t h e r p e rp e t ra t o rs t o o k p o s s e s s i o n o f

h is ca r a n d d ro ve a wa y. Later thatsa me ev eni ng , t he pet it ion er and other

members o f

t h e g ro up dous ed bot h stolen v ehicles w ith gasoline an d set th em on f ire. At W ood ard’s trial, one of his acc ompli ces , G ar

y H il l, testi fied th at W oodard w as the s hooter and that W oodard c lai med en ti tl em en t to A k r am ’ s c ar , s ay i ng t ha t he w as “ th e on e w ho s ho t th e g uy .” The ju r y c am e to th e sam e con clusion a nd co nvicted W ood ard on multip le coun ts. At t he s entenc ing hear ing that took pl ace a w eek after the j ur y retur ned i ts v erdict, defense couns el cal led only tw o w it ness es: the peti ti oner ’s mother , M arsha W oodard, an d his si ste r, Tony a W oodard. On directex aminat ion tot ali ng j ustten pag es of tra nsc ri pt, they tes ti fied th at W oodard w as a g ood son and l ov ing brother and, as di re cte d by

co unsel , t hey bo t h p l e a d e d w i t h t h e j u r y n o t t o i mp o s e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . W o o d a rd t h e n ma de an unsw or n s tatement , i n w hic h he g av e a l ess -t han- coherent a cc ount of the ev ents l eadi ng up to Ak ra m’s deat h, de ny ing his ow n g uil t and tel li ng the jur y thati t w as Gar

y H il l w ho had fire d the fatal shot

. The s tate present ed no ev ide nce. Al thoug h the t ra n sc rip t of the hea rin g d o es no t record the time th at th e he aring began, it app ears to h ave lasted less tha n an hou r. W oodard w as 19 y ears o ld at t he ti me of Akram’s deat h and at t he tr ial so me four months l ater

. Des pit e hi s a g e and the rela ti v ely unex ceptio n a l cir cums tanc es of the o f fe n s e t h a tle d t o h is co n vic t io n , t h e ju ry re c o m m e n d e d im p o s it io n o f t h e d e a t h p e n a lt y, and t he tr ial j u d ge a cc epted the recommendat ion , s entenc ing W oodard to death for th e06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 4 - aggravated m urde r counts a nd to v a rious term s on the othe r fe lony counts. W ood ard’s conv ic ti on w as aff ir med by the sta te c our

t of appeal s, see Sta te v. W oodard , No. 611 71, 1992 W L 84888 , * 11 (O hio Ct

. App. Apr

. 23, 1992) , and by the Ohi o Supreme C our t. See W oodard , 623 N. E.2d at 82

. Hi s s ubseq uent certiorari petiti on w as deni ed bythe Un it ed Stat es Supreme C our

t. See W

oodard v. Ohio , 512 U .S. 1246 ( 1994)

. W oodard the n fil ed a pet it ion for p ost -c onv ic ti on reli ef that w as dis mis sed in sta te c our t, see Sta te v. W

oodard , No. C R- 254478, sl ip op. ( Ohi o C t. Com. Pl eas Dec . 9, 1996), in an o rd er thatw as aff ir med by the Ohi o C our

t of Appea ls

. See Sta te v. W oodard , No. 719 12, 199 8 W L 23 844 (Ohio Ct

. App. Jan. 22, 1998)

. The Ohi o Supreme C our t den ied rev iew

i n 1998. See St

ate v. W oodard , 692 N .E.2 d 1024 (O hio 1998)

. That s ame y ear W oodard al so filed a pe ti ti on for hab eas relief in fede ral court but returne d to state court tem pora rily in order to e x hau st his sta te remedie s b efore federal li ti g ati on beg an. There he s oug ht t o reopen h is di re ct appeal in order to all eg e that his atto rn ey s w ere ineffect iv e, suppor ti ng hi s c lai m w it h aff ida v it s a nd seekin g an ev iden tiary hea ring. T hat app lication w as den ied by the Ohio Court of Appe als, wh ic h h e ld t h a tt h e cl a im wa s b a rr e d b y r e s ju d ic ata b e ca u se i t had not been rais ed on directappeal

. See Sta te v.W oodard , N o. 61171, 2001 W L 11348 73 (Ohi o C t. App. Sept. 18, 2 001)

. Al thoug h thi s c oncl usi on w a s, i n f a ct, er ro neous bec ause the e v ide nce to supp ort W ood ard’s allegation s o f in ef fective assistance of

coun sel w as ou tside th e record on d i r ec t ap pe al , th e Oh i o Su prem e C ou rt ne v er th el es s a ffir me d th e C ou rt of A ppe als. See Sta te v. W

oodard , 774 N. E.2d 1213 ( Ohi o 2002)

. At t hat p oin t, W oodard resumed his federal l it ig ati on, fil ing an a mended pet it ion that inc lud ed 31 g ro unds for re li ef, all but06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 5 - tw o of w hic h the distr ic t cour

t di smi ss ed w it hout an ev ide nti ar y hear ing , ei ther

on t he mer it s or as procedu ra ll y

default ed i n s tate cour

t. The di str ic t c our

t deter mined thata hear ing w as n e c e s s a ry i n o rd e r t o ru le o n t h e re m a in in g two gro u n d s , wh ic h a ll e ge d in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e of coun sel i n the penal ty phas e of the peti ti oner ’s tr ial

. The cour t al so g ra nted dis cov er y moti ons filed by

both par ti es. D u r i n g d i s c o v e r

y , c o u n s e l fo r t h e s t a t e i n s i s t e d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s w it ness es be depos ed, c lai ming thatthe cour t w oul d notbe a ble to ass ess their credi bil ity

so lel y from aff ida v it s t hat h ad al re ady been filed i n the ca se. As a resul t, the p eti ti oner depos ed several mem bers of

hi s f a m il y, tw o mitigation ex perts, and a psychologist. The se d e p o s it io n s a n d a f

f id a vit s we re e n t e re d in t h e re c o rd , b u t t h e d is t ri c t c o u rt a ls o h e a rd li ve testim ony from the petitio ner’s w itnesse s at the ensu ing ev iden tiaryhea ring. T he sta te did not s ubpoena or

ca ll any w it ness es. Base d on testim ony by W ood ard, th ree of

his fa mily me mb ers, a n d t h ree expert w itnesse s, the district court fo und tha t trial coun sel had failed to investig ate W ood ard’s family hi sto ry and soc ial hi sto ry

a d e qua tely , t hereby

l osi ng any

oppor tuni ty to present re lev ant i nformati on at the penal ty

heari ng i n s tate cour t. Al thoug h W oodard’s tr ial attor ney s d id procure s ome of his sc hool and juv eni le- cour t records in adv ance of t ri al, they did not use them, eit her as ex hib it s or , more si g nific antl y , as the basi s f o r f u rt her inv est ig ati on. Mo re ov er , t hey as si g ned the sta te- pai d inv est ig ator to ass is t in preparati on f o r th e c ulp abi li ty

phas e of the tr ial , butdi d notdi re ct him to i nv est ig ate g ro unds for06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 6 - mitigation in the event of conviction. During t h e w eek b etween th e return of the jury’ s v erdict an d the sente ncing hea ring, counsel did conta ct a clinical p sy cholo gist, Dr. Sand ra Mc Pherson, but she decl ine d to ev alu ate W oodard becau se there w as ins uff ic ien t t ime for her to d o a tho rough investig ati o n a n d issu e a repo rt. She late r recalled spen ding only about an hour

on t he c ase, pr inc ipa ll y i n speak ing to the peti ti oner ’s mother , and did not open a file on th e c ase, prepare a repor t, or tes ti fy at t ri al. The di s tr i c t c ou rt c on c l ud ed tha t th es e me ag er e ffor ts –a “ c urs or

y req ue s t for

s om e cour t an d s c ho ol r ec ords ” an d an “ el ev en th - ho ur at te mp t to c on ta c t a ps y c ho l og ist” – cons ti tuted the onl y

preparati on unde rt aken by co unsel i n preparati on for the p enal ty hear ing

. The dis tr ic t judg e f urther co ncl uded t hat t here had been no ac tual i nv est ig ati on car r i e d o u t b y t r i a l c o u n s e l o r b y a n y o n e e l s e a c t i n g o n W o o d a rd ’ s b e h a l f. I n s t e a d , the district court con clude d, cou nsel’s pe nalty-phase strategy w as limited to having W ood ard’s mother and si ste r ple ad for mercy , present ing W oodard’s unsw or n sta tement, and arg uin g a the oryof residua l dou bt that W ood ard w as no t the trig german , desp ite the jury ’s v erdict to t he c ontrar

y . Fol low ing the ev ide nti ar y hearing, the di str ic t c our t i ss ued a w ell -a nal yz ed and thoroug hly

detaile d o p ini on th at c ulmi nated in a findi ng thatthe peti ti oner had been “a fforded .

. . cons ti tuti onal ly defic ien t as si sta nce of couns el” at his penal ty hear ing i n s tate cour t. The di str ic t c our

t hel d tha t, in v iew

of the e v ide nce that w as pre sent ed at the hear ing in federal co urt – spec ificpor ti ons of w hic h are di sc uss ed bel ow – c ounse l’ s p re -h ear ing06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 7 - investig ation and prepa ration w as no t only def icient but also resulte d in prejud ice to the ir client. As a result, the state w as giv en 180 days to vacate th e pe titione r’s death sente nce and ei ther

i mpose a l ife s entenc e i n i ts pla ce or condu ct a new se ntenc ing hear ing

. From tha t cond itiona l g rant of relief , the state now app eals.

II. D ISC US SION A . St and ard o f Rev iew Beca use W oodard fil ed hi s federal habeas peti ti on after the eff ect iv e dat e of the Ant iterrorism an d Ef

fective Death Pen alty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the stan dard s set outin that sta tute g ov er n our

rev iew

. Lin dh v

. Mur phy , 521 U. S. 320, 326- 27 (1 997)

. W e rev iew the d is tr ic t c our

t’ s r uli ng s o n l eg al q uest ion s a nd on mix ed que st io n s of law and fact de novo , and the cour

t’ s fact ual f ind ing s for

clear error . Lucas v. O’

Dea , 179 F .3d 4 12, 4 16 (6 th C ir . 199 9)

. Ordin ar il y , w e w oul d notaff ir m a g ra nt of habea s reli ef on any cl aim that had bee n ad judicat ed o n the merits in stat e cou rt unless the a djud ication h ad resu lted in a de cision tha t (1) w as con trary to, or involv ed a n un reaso na b le a p p li c ation of , clearly est abl is hed federal law as dete rmi n e d b y t h e Supreme C our t or ( 2) w as based on a n unreason abl e det er minat ion of the fact s i n l ig ht of the ev ide nce present ed to the sta te cour ts. Sl agle v. Bagley, 457 F.3d 501 , 513 (6th Ci r. 200 6) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 225 4(d)), cer t. denied , 551 U .S. 1134 ( 2007)

.06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 8 - How ever, AE DPA is, b y its own terms, app licable on ly to hab eas claim s thatw ere “a dju dic ated on th e mer it s in Stat e cour t.” 28 U. S.C

. § 2254( d)

. Hen ce, i n rev iew ing the me rits of fede ral constitu tiona l claims that w ere not resolved bythe sta te cou rts, w e ap ply pre-AEDP A law

a nd rev iew

que stions of

la w a nd mixed question s of law and the facts de novo . See Maples v. Ste gall , 340 F.3d 43 3, 43 6-37 (6th Cir. 20 03). In this case , the Ohio C o u rto f A p p e a l s , t h e l astst a t e c o u rtt o re v i e w t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s i n e ffe c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o fc o u n s e l c la im s , d id n o tre a c h t h e m e ri t s o f t h o s e c la im s , i n s t e a d co n c lu d in g –m is t a k e n ly, a s t h e s t a t e n o w c o n c e d e s –t h a tt h e y we re b a rr e d b y re s judicat a . For this reason, there is n o d e f in it ive ru li n g b y t h e st a t e co u rt o n t h e p re c is e le ga l i s s u e s n o w b e fo re u s , a n d we th erefo r e r ev i ew

t he m de n ovo . Mo re ov er , there are no dis posi ti v e findi ng s o f factfrom t he sta te c our

t that must be pr esumed to be cor re ct, as w oul d other w is e be the c ase under 28 U.S.C. § 22 54(e )(1). B. L egal St and ard To est a b lis h i neffect iv e as si sta nce under the w ell -e ntrenche d tw o- par t Str ickl and anal y si s, W oodard mustsh ow ( 1) thattr ial co unsel ’s per form ance w as defici ent – obj ect iv ely unreason abl e under prev ail ing professi onal nor ms – and (2 ) that itpreju dic ed W oodard’s defense. See Str ickl and, 466 U.S. at 687- 88. The tes t for preju dic e i s w hether there i s a reason abl e probabi li ty that , but for couns el’ s unprofessi onal er ro rs , the re sul t of the p ro ceedi ng s w oul d hav e been different. See id. at 694

. “A reaso nab le prob ability is06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 9 - a prob ability suf

f icient to u n d e rm in e c o nf iden ce in the outco me ,” id. , buti s l ess than a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. at 693- 94. C. I nef fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Tr ial Co un sel The dis tr ic t cour

t deter mined that couns el’ s re present ati on at the penal ty phas e of W oodard’s tr ial w as not only def ic ien t but prej udi ci all y so . On ap peal , t he s tate cont ends t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rte r r e d i n g r a n t i n g re l i e f o n W o o d a rd ’ s tw o i n e ffe c t i v e - a ss is tanc e - o fcouns el cl aims

. In t hose cl aims , W oodard all eg ed that tr ial couns el w ere i neffect iv e i n the p e n alty phase in faili ng to use ex per t psy chol og ic al ass is tanc e and faili ng to hire a miti g ati on ex per

t and , by

extens ion , i n fail ing thems elv es to i n v est ig ate a nd present miti g ati ng ev ide nce. Combi nin g the cl aims , the dist ri ct cour t i nter preted them t o propound a s ing le arg ument: that tr ial counsel rendered ineffect iv e assi sta nce by fail ing to inv est ig ate and presentev ide nce of W oodard’s family bac kg ro und, upbr ing ing , and mental co ndi ti on. On ap peal , t he par

ti es als o hav e c ombine d the clai ms for analy si s, as do w e for pur poses of this opi nio n. 1. In ef fe ct iv e A

ssist ance : Perf

or man ce T he d istrict court sum ma riz ed th e evidence f rom th e transcriptof the pe titione r’s sent encin g hea ring in state court as follows: Dur ing the miti g ati on hear ing , c ounse l present ed o n ly the tes ti mony

of Marsha and Ton y a W ood ard, W ood ard’s mo the r and sister, an d W ood ard’s06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 10 - ow n uns w or n s tatement. W oodard’s mother and si ste r tes ti fied th at W o o d a rd w as a good so n an d broth er and thathe de serv ed m ercy. W oodard ex press ed rem o rse for Ak ra m’s deat h, bu t as ser ted t hat h e w as notAkram’s sho ote r. It als o bec ame clear

f ro m tes ti mony

in f ederal cour

t that t ri al couns el had noti nter v iew ed W oodard or

members o f his famil y

pr ior to tr ial i n preparati on for the p enal ty heari ng that w oul d i nev it abl y

foll ow hi s c onv ic ti on on the ag g ra v ated murde r charg e. W oodard’s mother had bee n presentthroug hout his tr ial but tol d the di str ic t cour t that she w as not i nter

v iew ed by hi s c ounse l unti l the mor nin g of the p enal ty hear ing , a w eek after the j ur y v erdict w as re tur ned, w hen s he met w it h the att or ney s for a s hor t w hil e i n a w it nes s ro o m and w as adv is ed to pl ead for her son’ s li fe. Lik ew is e, his si ste r tes ti fied th at s he met w it h c ounse l in the h all of t he cour

thous e shor

tl y before b ein g ca ll ed as a w it ness and w as tol d to “p lea d and beg ” for her brother ’s li fe. W oodard tes ti fied th at hi s l awy ers h ad di sc uss ed mi ti g ati on w ith him only af

ter he w as convicted, in a me eting tha t lasted abo ut 20 minu tes. He said t h a t h e h ad giv en co unse l the na me s and conta ct informa tion for othe r mem bers of his family and frie nds w ho coul d be cal led as w it ness es, but he als o ind ic ated that he had not bee n aske d ab outhis person al history or that of his fam ily

. Inste ad, he testif ied, th ey told him to “ g et up there and beg for y our l ife and say

y ou’ re heal ed.” Rev iew ing thi s e v ide nce, the dis tr ic t c our t hel d tha t c ounse l’ s i n ves ti g ati on and pr eparati on for the mi ti g ati on phas e of W oodard’s tr ial w as obj ect iv ely unreason abl e. On app eal, th e respo nde nt cha llenges the di s t ri ct court’s de cision on three ground s, cont endi ng : ( 1) thatW oodard fail ed to sh ow t h a t c o u n s e l ’s i nv est ig ati on w as unreason abl e,06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 11 - beca use h e can notestab lish the f ull exten t of thatinv estigation ; (2) that trial c o u n s e l’s failure to p resen t add itiona l ev id e n c e wa s n ot un reaso nab le, be cause the sou rces for it w ere un available at trial; and (3) tha t W ood ard failed to show that trial coun sel’s residualdou bt strate gy

w as un reaso nab le, giv en th e risk that introd uction of add itiona l ev iden ce w oul d hav e opene d the door damag ing i nformati on abou t W oodard. W e find no mer itto the se argume nts. As to t he f irst g ro und, the s tate cont ends – c or re ctl y – t hat i n order

to est abl is h the professi onal unreas onabl eness of counsel ’s inv est ig ati on, W oodard bears the burden of docu me nting “either thro ugh the [case f ile] or state me nts f rom trial counse l w hatthey did to investigate the case an d w hy the y pursue d tha t strategy.” The state the n argues – inc or re ctl y

– t hat W oodard c annot sus tain th a t b u rden bec ause, dur ing l it ig ati on i n s tate court, “he subm itted no af f idavits from his tr ia l a ttorn eys conce rning the extent of their in ves ti gat io n .” Mo re o ver, t h e s ta te ac cu se s t h e pe ti ti o n e r of gain in g an un fa ir a d van ta ge beca use b oth atto rneys had died bythe tim e of the evident iary

hea ring in d is t ri c t court and , the refore, cou ld not“defend them selves ag ainst claim s that the y did not talk to fam ily members or

i nv est ig ate W oodard’s so ci al his tor y .” The respon dent further co ntends that “s inc e W oodard had [an] oppor tuni ty i n the sta te cour

t to produce an a ff ida v itfrom c ounse l on th e extent of

their inv estigation , tha t failure sho uld cutagainst W ood ard’s claim. ” In suppor

t of this arg ument, the res pondentci tes three opi nio ns of this co urt, Car ter v. Mitchell , 443 F .3d 5 17, 5 31 (6 th C ir . 200 6) , cer t. denied , 507 U .S. 938 ( 2007) ; Ma son06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 12 - v. Mitchell , 320 F .3d 6 04, 6 20- 21 ( 6th C ir . 200 3) ; and Martin v. Mitchell , 280 F. 3d 594, 615 (6 th C ir . 200 2)

. Non e of the three c ases , how ev er , re qui re s thatev ide nce of the inv est ig ati on of tr ial co unsel co m e f rom thei r sta tements or thei r cas e fil es, how ev er pr eferabl e tho se sources mig ht be

. It is tr ue th at i n the mostrecentof the t hree, Car ter , w e obs er

v ed th at “ cur iou sl y

abs ent from the re cord i s a ny st ate m e n t f ro m tri al couns el desc ri bin g w hat h e di d or di d notdo in inv est ig ati ng Carter ’s bac kg ro und. By not detai li ng trial counse l’s ef

forts to l earn of

Carter’s background , Carter has provided n o ba sis fo r a f inding tha t trial counse l’s i nvestigation w as un reaso nab le.” Car ter , 443 F .3d a t 531. But , in tha t opin ion w e also no ted that“there [we]re no allegation s t hatco unse l did not co nta ct the four fam ily

mem bers” w ho h ad u sef ul informa tion to of fe r, i n c o ntrastto three fam ily me mb ers w ith little use f u l informa tion who had sig ned af f idavits stating that th ey w ere nev er cont act ed by

tr ial co unsel

. Id. at 530- 31. Thus, Car ter f ail ed to prov ide i nformati on from any

relev antsource (eithe r relatives w ith imp ortan t knowled ge or trial coun sel) detai li ng tr ial co unsel ’s efforts to l ear n of Ca rt er ’s bac kg ro und. It is al so tr ue th at Ma son i n clu d e s o ur su g g est ion that“ in order for u s t o ev alu ate wh e t h e r d e fe n s e c o u n s e l re n d e r e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n e f fe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e a ts e n t e n c in g, we must know

more about the extent of c ounse l’ s i nv est ig ati on and preparati on of mit ig ati ng evidence. ” Ma son , 320 F.3 d at 62 0. Butthere we rem and ed th e case for an evident iary hea ring “[b]e cause the reco rd as it now stan ds ref lects dispu tes ab outdefense coun sel’s performa nce wi th respe ct to the sente ncing pha se of Mason’s t ri al.” Id. at 620- 21. The re cord i n thi s c ase re flect s n o s uch dis pute. An d al tho u gh th e r e m a nd i n Ma son w as06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 13 - pr esumabl y

ordered s o tha t t ri al couns el coul d t e st ify , t he r uli ng st ands merel y for t he obv iou s: that s uch tes ti mony , w hen av ail abl e, i s p re ferred. Ma son doe s not ho ld, as a cate gorical matte r, tha t testim ony from trial counse l or ev iden ce f rom co unse l’s case f ile is a c ondi ti on precede nt t o a g ra nt of habea s reli ef on a c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce. The final ca se ci ted , Martin , is si mply not on point. In st ate c our t, Ma rt in had fail ed t o d e ve lo p t h e fa c t u a l b a s is fo r h is cl a im t h a tt ri a l c o u n s e l h a d re n d e re d in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e i n the penal ty phas e of M arti n’s tr ial

. Beca use Ma rt in had n o t cont act ed tr ial couns el and dev elo ped a factual record concer nin g his all eg edl y defic ien t represent ati on dur ing pos t- conv ic ti on proceed in gs in sta te c our t, w e hel d tha t he w as not e nti tl ed to an ev ide nti ar

y heari ng in the distr ic t cour t, based on 28 U. S.C . § 2254( e) (A )( ii ). See Martin , 280 F.3d at615 . Here, by cont rast, W ood ard prese nte d a factu al basis for his claim in state cou rt

. A s petitio ner, he doe s have the bu rden of estab lishing that trial coun sel’s inv est ig ati on w as defici ent. See S t r ick lan d, 4 6 6 U .S. at 68 7- 88. But Martin does not prohi bit a defendant from meeti ng thi s burden by means of s our ces othe r th a n trial couns el’ s s tatement s o r cas e fil e. The st ate n ext arg ues, as to the s econd g ro und, that tr ial co unsel ’s failu re to present the “n e w m it ig ati ng ev ide nce” w as not u nreason abl e bec ause the mai n s our ces for t hat ev ide nce – the tw o male fig ur es in W oodard’s ch il dhood – w ere unav ail abl e at tr ial

. Leo Cl ayton, W oodard’s father , w as inv olv ed al ong w it h hi s b roth e r (W oodard’s unc le) i n a drug-traf f icking ope ration in C le velan d an d w as in prison for the f irst sev en years of his06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 14 - son’ s l ife. Out of pri son, Cl ayton used W oodard as a dr ug cour ier as ear ly as ag e ei g ht, sendi ng hi m unacc ompani ed on a plane to Chi cag o on at leas t one occas ion to del iv er or pick up contrab and

. W hen Clayton ’s own add iction to narco tics disab led him , W o o dard attempt ed to operate h is father ’s dr ug -t ra ff ic ki ng busine ss for h im a t ag e 12 or 13. Me anw hil e, W oodard’s mother had beg un li v ing w it h another m an, A lon z o Eber hardt, w ho phy si cal ly

as saul ted M arsha W oodard i n frontof her son and ev entual ly w ent to pr is on for shoot ing her

. As the s tate poi nts out, nei ther of the tw o men t est ified at tr ial

. The sta te c ontends thatC layton w oul d nothav e tes ti fied i n any ev ent, becau se he w as “h idi ng from t he l aw ” at t he ti me of tr ial

. Th e s ta te furth er arg ues that the p eti ti oner has faile d to est abl is h that tr ial couns el w oul d hav e been abl e to cont actC layton, noti ng tes ti mony

that neither

W oodard or his m other knew Clayton’ s ex actw hereabouts at that time . Th e stat e con ten ds tha t the re is, li kewi se, no reason to believe tha t Ebe rhardt would have testif ied attrial and tha t Marsha W ood ard he rself of fered no test imo ny abo ut ab use at t he hand s o f Eberh ardt ei ther at the t ri al or

i n the ev ide nti ar

y hear ing i n di str ic t c our t. W e c oncl ude t hat t he record es tabl is hes other w is e. Le o C l ayto n te s ti fi ed in the f ed eral e v i de nt i ar y h ea r i ng a nd a dm i tt ed t ha t, a t th e ti me of his so n’s tri al, there had been an outs tandi ng w ar ra nt for his arrest . He sai d tha t he had not a ttend ed th e tr ial for that reas on, but he cont ended t hat h e w as in Cl ev ela nd dur ing the tr ial and that – al thoug h nev er co ntac ted b y

tr ial co unsel – he di d s peak by telephon e w it h hi s s on an d w i th M ars ha an d Ton y a W oo da rd ab ou t th e on g oi ng tr i al

. C layton also06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 15 - ind ic ated that the o uts tandi ng w ar ra nt w as act ual ly for a rela ti v ely

min or ch arg e, an d he w as adamant that, i f

a sked to tes ti fy at t he s entenc ing hear ing , he “[ m]ostdefini tel y . . . w oul d hav e s tepped forw ard.” The st ate a rg ues that “t his lat e- in- the- day brav er y ri ng s h oll ow ” and q uest ion s n ot onl y w hether Clayton w oul d hav e been w il li ng to ri sk j ail for h is so n butal so w hether tr ial couns el coul d hav e c ontac ted C layton h ad th ey tr ied

. One o f their

pote nti al sou rces for suc h i nformati on, M arsha W oodard, tes ti fied at tr ial that, as far a s s he k new , C layton w as in the C lev ela nd area butthatsh e had not s een him , whic h m ight be tak en to i mply that she did not know

how to co n ta ct h im. In the federal hear ing , how ev er , s he te sti fied th at at th e time of

trial, she could ha ve t o ld trial counse l how to cont act him . W ood ard also made i ncons is tent sta tements , t ell ing a probati on officer at the t ime of t ri al that he di d not k n o w whe re Cl a yt o n wa s , b u tt e s t ifyin g i n t h e fe d e ra l h e a ri n g t h a th e h a d c o u l d h a ve cont act ed hi s father

i f asked to do s o by

tr ial co unsel

. The r espon dent’ s s kept ic is m notw it hst andi ng , w e c oncl ude t hat i n holdi ng that tr ial coun sel w ere inef

fective fo r not prese nting this evidence in m itigation, th e d is t rict court neces sar il y

found credi ble the w it ness es w ho tes ti fied that the infor mati on c oul d hav e been uncov ered and pr esent ed attr ial

. Mo re ov er , despi te the state’ s c onj ect ure, w e find jus t as pla usi ble the poss ibi li ty thatC layton’ s famil y

w as abl e to cont acthi m but w as als o relu cta nt to t ell l aw

enforc ement offici als w here he coul d be found at t he ti me of tr ial

. In an y ev ent,06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 16 - the state has no t shown the district cou rt’s fa ctua l dete rmina ti o n s r e ga rding Cl ayton’s testim ony are clearly

erroneo us. If the district cou rt’s accoun t of the ev iden ce is plau sible in lig ht of the reco rd viewe d in its en ti re ty, th e co u rtof ap p e a ls m a y no t re vers e it e ven t h o u gh conv inc ed th at ha d i t bee n si tti ng as the tr ier of fact , it w oul d hav e w eig hed the e v ide n ce differentl y . W here the re are tw o per mis si ble v iew s o f the evidence, the factf inde r’s choice bet w een the m can notbe clearly errone ous. And erson v. City of Be ssem er City, N.C. , 470 U.S. 564 , 573 -74 (198 5). As w ith Clayton ’s testimo ny, the state conte nds th at evidence of Alonzo Eberh ardt’s abuse of the p eti ti oner ’s mother w as unav ail abl e at the t im e of tr ial or , al ter nati v ely , t hat the p eti ti oner

has not show n i t t o hav e been av ail abl e, ci ti ng the lac k of an y tes ti mony from Eber hardt hi mself , a s w ell as the fact th at t he v ic ti m of the al leg ed abus e – M arsha W oo d a rd

– d i d n o t t e s t i fy a b o u t i t a t t r i a l

. Th e s t a t e a l s o a rg u e s t h a t t h e r e i s n o document ati on i n the record co n f irmi ng su ch abuse , “ onl y a referenc e by

D r. Pearson dur ing the post -c onv ic ti on proceed ing s t hat [ Eber hardt] w as a k n o wn ‘b a tterer ’ w ho som etim es pu lled a gun on W ood ard’s mo the r in f ront of [W ood ard]. ” Butthe sta te also conc edes that at the federal ev ide nti ar y hear ing , Ma rs ha W oodard tes ti fied th at s he s tood by the sta tements i n the aff ida v itthat she had si g ned i n c onnec ti on w it h the pos t- conv ic ti on li ti gat ion i n s tate cour t, thereby

effect iv ely

i ncor porati ng them by referenc e i nto h er tes ti mony

i n federa l cour

t. In that aff id a vit sh e des cr ibe d the abus e s he s uff ered at Ebe rhardt’s ha nds. Althou gh it m ight h ave stren gthene d the reco rd f rom th e fact-f inde r’s poi nt of v iew

if Marsha W oodard had re it erated the d etai ls of Eber hardt’ s c onduc t dur ing06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 17 - her tes ti mony , t he di str ic t c our t apparentl y

found thatl iv e tes ti mony from t his w it ness w as suffici ent to est abl is h her credi bil ity and, by extens ion , conc lud ed that the all eg ati ons in her aff ida v itw ere al so credi ble

. Mo re ov er , t here w as another ey ew it ness to the d omesti c a buse not ment ion ed by the s tate: W oodard’s sis ter , Tony a. At t he federal hear ing , s he reaff ir med the infor mati on in her pos t- conv icti on affidav it , i n w hic h s he h a d d e sc ribed the re lat ion shi p betw een her mother and Al onz o Eberhardt, w ho w as Tony a’s f ather

. As a resu lt , the reco rd co ntai ns two so u rc e s fo r t h is e vid e n c e t h a twe re a va il a b le a tt h e t ri a l i n st a t e co u rt , a n d t h o s e two source s w ere, in fact, wi tne sses at the p ena lty h earing in st ate co urt. Co unse l sim ply did not a sk ei ther of them t he r ig ht q uest ion s, w hic h may hav e been due to the absen ce of an investig ation into the ir cl ient’s ba ckgro u n d t h at w ould have informe d the m of this fam ily his tor y . It is di ff ic ult , i f not i mposs ibl e, t o c oncei v e tha t t he l ack of re lev ant q uest ion ing w as the result of

inten tiona l strategy

on the part of

the pe titione r’s counsel. In i ts thi rd arg ument conc er nin g tri al coun sel ’s performanc e, the state arg ues that the p eti ti oner

has fail ed to sh ow

thathi s a ttor ney s’ residu al- doubt strateg y w as u n re a s o n a b le in li gh to f t h e ri s k t h a t in t ro d u c t io n o f t h e n e w m it ig a t in g e vid e n c e wo u ld h a ve all ow ed th e jur

y to lea rn damagi ng informati on about W oodard. W hil e “ strateg icch oic es ma de a f ter tho rough investig ation of law and facts relevant to plau sible op tions a re v irtually unch allengea ble,” Str

ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 0, s trateg icch oic es made after l ess than compl ete inv est ig ati on are open to se ri ous chal len g e. Theyare “ re asona ble preci sel y to06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 18 - the e xtent that reason abl e professi onal judg ments supp ort the limi tati ons on i nv est ig ati on.” Id. at 691. In ot her w ords, counsel has a duty to make reas onabl e inv est ig ati ons or to make a reason abl e dec is ion thatmakes par ti cul ar i nv est ig ati ons unnec ess ar

y . In an y

i neffect iv eness ca se , a par ti cul ar dec is ion not to inv est ig ate mus t be direct ly as ses sed f o r re asona ble ness i n al l the circumsta nces, app ly ing a heavy mea sure of

d e f e re nce to coun sel’s judgme nts. Id. As the d is tr ic t c our t found, tr ia l couns el’ s s trateg y , i f it can be c all ed th at, w as v irtuallyw holly unin forme d an d w as, th erefore, un reaso nab le. Ex ceptfor the cu rsory re q uestfor c our

t and sc hoo l re cords and c ounse l’ s e lev enth- hour att empt t o c ontac t a psy chol og is t, there i s n othi ng i n the r e co rd t o s ug g estthatei ther of W oodard’s tr ial a tt o rn e ys eve n at te m p te d to in ves ti gat e hi s b a ck gro u n d in pre p a ra ti o n fo r se n te n cin g. Such represent ati on is, as a leg al matter , defic ien t. See W iggins v. Sm it h , 539 U .S. 510, 52 4- 28 ( 20 03 ) ( ho l di ng t ha t w he n c ou ns el a ba nd on s i nv es ti g at i on i nt o th e c l i en t’s back g ro und after

hav ing ac q uired onl y r udi mentary kn o wl edg e from a nar ro w se t of source s, neith er the choice nor the inv estigation is reaso nab le und er Str ickl and ). H ence, becau se the fol low -u p s tep – the choi ce to op t for a resid u a l-d o ubt s trateg y – w as uni nformed, itw as als o professi onal ly unreason abl e. See W

il li am s v . An der son , 460 F .3d 789 , 804 (6th Cir. 2006 ).06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 19 - 2. In ef fe ct iv e A

ssist ance : Prej ud ice “[ I]n order

to est abl is h preju dic e, the n ew ev ide nce that a habea s p eti ti oner present s mu std if fer in a substa ntial w ay — in strength and subjectmat ter — f rom th e evidence actu ally presen ted at sent encin g.” Hill v. Mitchell , 4 0 0 F.3d 30 8, 31 9 ( 6th C ir . 200 5)

. In thi s c ase, the sta te c hal len g es the d is tr ic t c our t’ s d eter minat ion t h at t he pet it ion er w as pr eju dic ed by

co unsel ’s defic ien t perf o rmanc e, c haract er iz ing the ev ide nce both as “t enuous ” becau se of i ts ind irect sources and as “t oo w eak to est abl is h act ual preju dic e.” T he sta te also insists that th e mitigating evi den ce of fered at the ev iden t ia ry hea ring in federal co urt, if produce d byW oodard at the o ri g ina l tr ial , w oul d hav e r is ked int ro duct ion by the prosec uti on of damag ing re butta l ev ide nce. Des pit e thi s s pecul ati on, w e ag re e w it h the d is tr ic t c our

t’ s fin din g thatthe ev ide nce adduc ed atthe federal heari ng establ is hed a cl ear ca se of p reju d ice to the peti ti oner , resul ti ng from t he fail ure of hi s a ttor ney s t o uncov er w hat w as re asona bly

av ail abl e i nformati on abou t W oodard’s bac kg ro und. The new mit ig ati ng ev ide nce differed s ubst anti all y i n scope and subst ance from the meag er tes ti mony

present ed at the sent enci ng phase of W oodard’s tr ial , throug h w hic h the jur y l ear ned onl y

thatW oodard w as bor n to a s ing le mother w hose sol e i ncome w as from w elfare and g re w

up in a housi ng proj ect ; that his f ather w as in pr is on until W oodard w as eig ht y ears old ; t hat h e had a g ood rela ti onshi p w it h hi s s is ter ; and thathe d ro pped ou t of high schoo l before gradua tion. Becau se the re w as no thing of a truly mitigati ve natu re about that tes ti mony , i t i s o bv iou s t hat t ri al couns el w ere focus ed merel y on attempt ing to06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 20 - arou se the ju ry ’s sympa thy th rough plea s for lenien cy bythe pe titione r’s moth er and sister, in add ition t o p re sent ing W ood ard’s obviously inef fectu al, un sw orn stat em entto the jury in an i ll -c oncei v ed effort t o c re ate resi dual doubtabouthi s g uil t. Bycontra s t , a tt h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i n fe d e ra l c o u rt , c o u n s e l fo r t h e p e t i t i o n er pr esent ed th e tes ti mony of three f a m il y

members ( the p eti ti oner ’s mother , father , and si ste r) and the p eti ti oner hi msel f, as w ell as three ex per t w it ness es (D r. Sharon Pea rs on, Cha rl es See, and D r. Sandra M cPhe rs on)

. The evide n ce t hey prov ide d pai nted a far different picture of the teen- ag ed W oodard tha n th e o n e the j ur y sa w at tr ial

. The new proof rev eal ed not justa dis adv antag ed chil dhood, but als o ent ang lementw it h c ri me from a v er y ear ly ag e. Combi ned w ith s er iou s p sy chol og ic al probl ems, thi s s oci al his tor y se t W oodard on a pat h to personal di sas ter , c ulmi nati n g i n h is se nsel ess sh ooti ng of Ma ni A k ra m . Al t h o u gh itse e m s virt u a ll y c e rt a in t h a tt h e n e w m it ig a t io n e vid e n c e wo u ld n o th a ve co nv inc ed ev en one juror thatW oodard w as inn ocent

. i. e. , t h a t s o me o n e e l s e in the g aff li ng g ang w as act ual ly the tr ig g er man, it is eq ual ly cl ear thatav ail abl e ev ide nce about the petitio ner’s backgroun d and p sy cholo gical ma ke-up might w ell have changed at least one j uror ’s min d aboutthe propr iety of impos ing the death penal ty

. For ex ample, D r. Pearson, a cl ini cal psy chol og is t, test ified that s he had int er v iew ed and t est ed th e pet it ion er i n order to ev alu ate h is “ back g ro und and ps y chos ocial hi sto ry .” In do ing so , s he rev iew ed v ar iou s d ocum e n ts, i ncl udi ng W oodard’s sc hool , hea lt h, an d juv en i l e c o u rt r e c o rd s . S h e c o n c l u d e d , a mo n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t h e s u ffe r e d from06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 21 - und iagnosed and unt reate d atte ntion def icit hyperactivi ty disorde r, w hich m anif este d itself in behav iors suc h as ang er , ag g re ss ion , and poor impul se cont ro l. Suc h “ [i ]mpul si v ity ,” sh e sai d i n an aff ida v itfil ed as an e x hib iti n federa l cour t, “o ften lea ds to ac ci dents and e n ga geme nt in po ten tially dan gerous activities w ithou t consid eratio n of possible cons eq uence s.” D r. Pearson als o not ed th at: Eug ene is a productof his dy sfuncti onal famil y of or ig in, g ro w ing up i n the proje cts , unh eal thy

role model ing , una v ail abi li ty of re asona bly

att ain abl e, soc ial ly ac cept abl e g oal s, ex posure to re peated v iol ence, des tr uct ion and los s, and probab le cong eni tal di ff ic ult ies – l ow bi rt h w eig ht, Atte nti on Defic it/H y peract iv ity

D is order , fetal di stress , C ytomeg alo v ir us ex posure. The “u nheal thy ro le modeli ng ” w as prov ide d, firs t and foremost , by L e o Cla yton, W oodard’s bi olo g ic al father, w ho w as impr is oned for muc h of hi s s on’ s c hil dhood a nd w ho n e v e r ma r r i e d h i s mo t h e r . D r . P e a rs o n r e p o rt e d t h a t fo l l o w i n g C l a yt o n ’ s r e l e a s e from pr is on: Leo q uic kl y

put Eug ene t o w or k i n Leo’ s d ru g bus in ess as he b eli ev ed no one w oul d s uspec t an 8 y ear ol d. Eug ene w as flow n back and fort h betw een Chi cag o and Cl ev ela nd pick ing up dr ug s f ro m Leo’ s s uppl iers; he al so w as ex pect ed to del iv er

dr ug s a nd c oll ectpay ment i n the nei g hbor hood. By the ag e of 12 or

13, he w as ru nni ng Leo’s b u sines s a ttempt ing to keep from col lap si ng se conda ry

to Leo’ s o w n i ncreasi ng dr ug us e. Leo repor ts int enti onal ly

teac hin g hi s s on to hus tl e as a w ay to make a l iv ing

. He deni es teac hin g him to ear n a li v ing leg it imat ely

. W hil e Leo w or ked in hi s earl ier y ears, the s treets soo n p ro vided h im a n i ncome. Eu g ene l ater st opped cont actw it h Leo sec ondar y to Leo’ s d ru g us e. Base d on the p eti ti oner ’s ex per ien ce as a juv eni le dr ug -c our ier for h is father , D r. Pearson found that “E ug ene l ear ned v er y ear ly to tak e r e sp o n sibili ty

for t he ac ti ons of others, to06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 22 - keep his mouth sh u t, t o b e hav e l oy all y ev en w hen l oy alty

w as not d eser

v ed. He had t o lea rn to ig nore or

deny fears or co ncer ns in order

to ple ase his father .” The sec ond role model w as, of course, Al onz o Eber hardt, w ho a lso w as nev er ma rried to W ood ard’s mo the r bu t w ho liv ed w ith her for m any years a nd whom W ood ard cal led “D ad.” Dr

. Pearson re por ted that Eber hardt “ attempt ed to befri end [ W oodard] an d parent h im [ but] at t he s ame ti me w as v iol ent w it h hi s mot her

. . . [and ] ev entual ly

w as impr is oned for

sh ooti ng [her

]. ” A cc o rding to Ma rs ha W oodard, E ber hardt “ tr ied to be a father- fig ur e to Eug ene,” but she als o said thatEberhardt “ oftenti mes pu ll ed a g un on me,” someti mes i n frontof the p eti ti oner . Anothe r ex per

t w it ness , C har les See, w as the d irect or and co- founder of the Com mu nity R e -e n t ry Program , w hich aid ed ind iv idua ls new ly released f rom p rison. He testif ied as a cu ltural expert to his fam iliarity w ith the Clev elan d urba n com mu nity in w hich W o o dard g re w

up, as w ell as from hi s k now led g e of the W oodard famil y . See s aid that W oodard c ame from a family that on his father ’s si de w as loc all y noto ri ous for i nv olv ement in crime an d v arious illegal activ ities and thatLeo Clayton had inv olved t h e p e t itione r in traff ic ki ng drug s at a y oung age. T he res ult ing impact on W oodard, he tes ti fied, w as that a lt h o u gh “h e st ru ggl e d t o d e ve lo p so m e so rto f i d e n t it y i n d e p e n d e n tf ro m t h a to f h is fa m il y, he found th at al most impos si ble , bei ng co nst antl y reminde d of w ho he w as, bei ng cons tantl y

i nv it ed to j oin v ar iou s y outh g ang s, and als o unfortun atel y bei ng g iv en dr ug s b y his father

[and ] us ing dr ug s w it h hi s father .” I n addi ti on, S ee s aid thatAl onz o Eber hardt06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 23 - “w as a reputed under

w or ld fig ur e himsel f

. . . . So betw een the reputa ti on of Leo C layton and Alonzo E b e rh a rd [t], Eu gene f [ou nd] himse lf inv olved w ith tw o me n w ho were notor iou sl y

reputed in thatcommunity .” Se e al so sai d tha t, to t he bes t of hi s k now led g e, all the informa tion o n w hich he base d his testim ony w as available at the time of W ood ard’s tr ial i n 1990. Dr . M cPhe rs on w as the c li nic al psy chol og is t w ho h a d n o t been c ontac ted b y peti ti oner ’s tr ial att or ney s u nti l after the j ur y had re tur ned a g uil ty

v erdict and w ho w as therefore un abl e to ev alu ate a nd fil e a repor t on thei r cl ien t in t im e for the sent enci ng hear ing

. She no ted t hat t here w as undoubte dly suff ic ien t ev ide nce av ail abl e on w hic h to base an ev alu ati on atthatti me but, w it h no oppo rt uni ty to g ather

and anal yz e i t, she had been for ced to de cl ine to tak e on the c ase. I n re s p o n s e , t h e s t a t e a rg u e s t h a tt h i s n e w l y p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e , i n a n d of i t s e l f, is not par ti cul ar ly pow er ful, becaus e the ev ide nti ar y su ppor t for iti s “ tenuous , c oming from a c o l l a t e ra l s o u r c e i n s t e a d o f t h e p r i ma r y a c t o rs . ” W e rej e c tt h i s v i e w o f t h e p ro o f. It is tr ue, a s t he s tate poi nts out, tha t Al onz o Eber hardt hi msel f nev er tes ti fied, b y aff ida v it , dep osi ti on, o r in perso n. But he w as not t he onl y av ail abl e s our ce for i nformati on about the d omesti c a buse that mark ed W oodard’s ch il dhood, g iv en th at bo th M arsha W oodard and Eber hard t ’ s d aug hter , Tony a W oodard, c oul d hav e prov ide d tha t i nformati on to th e jury

. And , cont rary to the state ’s conte ntion , Dr. Pearson ’s af f idavit w as no t the sole source for the informa tion abo ut W ood ard’s early involv em entin his fa the r’s drug busine ss.06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 24 - Cl ayton, in an affidav itfil ed as par t of t he sta te po st- conv ic ti on l it ig ati on, a dmit ted t hat h e beg an us ing W oodard to ru n dr ug s w hen he w as eig ht y ears o ld and t hat, w hen t he boy w as 12, C layton u sed him to pi ck up c ontraband fro m a n o u t- of-st ate s uppl ier

. At t he subse quent fede ral hearing, Clayton a f f irmed a s t rue all t he state me nts in his af f idavit. H e did not tes ti fy conc er nin g the st a tement in Dr . Pe arson’ s a ff ida v itthat , atag e 12 or 13, W ood ard too k it upon himse lf to r un his drug-traf f icking busin ess in an attem pt to keep it f rom co llapsing due t o Clayton ’s increa sing drug use. Butthis informa tion a lso has a d irect source : W ood ard him self t estif ied at the f ede ral h earing t hatt he fam ily h istorygiv en in Dr. Pearson’ s a ff ida v itw as acc urate. The st ate n ext arg ues that the d is tr ic t c our t made no credi bil ity

findi ng s reg ardin g the in f o rmation co ntai ned i n aff ida v it s a nd merely adopt ed by

referenc e i n the federal hear ing . W e di sag re e here, as w ell

. By hol din g t h a t tr ia l couns el w ere i neffect iv e i n not pr esent ing thi s mi ti g ati ng ev ide nce, the dis tr ic t cour t w as neces sar il y findi ng credi ble the w itn e s ses in supp ort of thatev iden ce. Moreover, that d ete rmina tion is notclearly errone ous. T he sta te con cede s thatthe ne w mitigating evid e n c e is substan tially dif feren t in subje ct ma tter f rom th at prese nte d at trial, bu t den ies tha t the new mitigating evi den ce is subs tanti all y strong er . As ind ic ated in the d is cus si on s et ou t abo v e, t he proof off ered at the p enal ty

phas e of W oodard’s tr ial co nsi ste d of “[hi s] mother

and si ste r tes ti f[y ing ] t hat W oodard w as a g ood s on and brother and that he des er v ed mercy .” W oodard made a n06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 25 - unsw or n s tatementi n w hic h he ex press ed re mors e for the v ic ti m’s death, but deni ed th at he w as the shoot er . That w as the e xtent of the ev ide nce off ered i n mi ti g ati on. It sta nds in stark cont rast to th e core them e of the ne w mitigating ev iden ce: th e ef fect on W ood ard of hav ing a father

w ho i nv olv ed h im i n d rug sa les w hen he w as sti ll a c hil d and a father fig ur e w h o s ubj ect ed W oodard’s mother to phy si cal abus e i n W oodard’s presenc e. It w ould be dif

f icult, if not im possib le, to con clude t h a tt h is e v iden ce w as no t subst ant ially stronger tha n tha t presen ted at tr ia l. I ti s no m isstep to conclud e in add ition th at if this e vide n ce had bee n present ed attr ial , t here i s a reason abl e probabi li ty at lea st one j uror wo u ld h a ve h a d a re a s o n a b le d o u b tt h a td e a t h wa s t h e a p p ro p ri a t e p e n a lt y. Nor do w e beli ev e, as the state now co ntends , t hat t he new ev ide nce, i f pres ented to t he j ur y , w oul d hav e r un th e r is k o f opening the door to a bar ra g e of damag ing rebutt al ev ide nce about W oodard. In O hio , atthe ti me of W oodard’s tr ial , the pros ecut or ’s use of re butta l ev ide nce in the p enal ty phas e w as g ov er ned by thi s r ule : The prosec utor , i n the penal ty st ag e of a c api tal t rial, mayrebut false or inc omplet e s tatement s reg ardin g the defendant’ s c ri minal record. This r ig ht is li mite d, ho w ever, to those instan ces w here the de fen s e o f fers a specif ic ass erti on, b y

a mi ti g ati on w it ness or by the defendant, that mis re present s t he d e fe n d a n t ’s p ri o r c ri m in a l h is t o ry. State v . D ePew , 528 N .E.2 d 542, sy l. ¶ 3 ( Ohi o 1988)

. Base d on DePew , the district court re jec ted t he W arden’ s a rg ument: “ Had defense couns el merel y present ed th e tes ti mony re g ardin g W oodard’s re lat ion shi ps w it h Cl ayton and Eber hardt in the c ontext of present ing W ood ard’s fam ily

background , the re is a subst ant ial likeliho od tha t any reb utta l ev iden ce06-4329

W oo dwa rd v . M itc he ll

- 26 - regarding W ood ard’s chara cter w ould n ot have bee n adm issible during t rial.” On ap pea l, the s tate has p re se nted no reason to bel iev e the othe r- act s e v ide nce w oul d hav e been admis si ble

. Indeed, al thoug h framed as “rebutt al, ” it is difficul t to g ra sp jus t w hat rebutt al w oul d ac hie v e. Ev ide nce that W oodard had prev iou sl y committe d v ar iou s j uv eni le cr imes w oul d seem cons is tent w it h the theme of t he new miti g ating e videnc e, i. e. , t hat h e had been rais ed i n a famil y

env ironment i n w hic h c ri me w as seen as a w ay of l ife, not a rebutt al of it. III . CO NC LU SION For the re asons se t outabov e, w e c oncl ude that the dist ri ct cour t did not err

i n r uli ng that peti ti oner

W oodard recei v ed i neffect iv e ass is tanc e of c ounse l in the p enal ty phas e of his st ate t ri al. W e the re fore AF FI RM the jud g ment of the dis tr ic t cour t and R EM AN D the cas e for is suanc e of a c ondi ti onal w ri t of habeas co rp us direct ed to the sta te c our t.