Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70035
ANTHON Y B ART EE P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. NAT HANI ELQUA RT ER M AN, DI RE CT OR , T EXAS DE P AR T M ENT OF CR I M I NALJ US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 06- C V

- 263

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * In 199 8, A n t h on y B art ee w as sentenced to dea t h in T exas f or th e m u rder of D avid C o o k , co m m i t t ed d u ri n g a robbery. H e seeks a C ert i f i cat e of A pp eal abili t y ( C O A) f rom ou r court i n order t o be abl e t o app ealf rom t h e di st ri ct court’ s den i alof

federalha beas rel i ef

. A l on g t h a t lin e, he requ est s a C O Af or fo u ris s u e s . In a d d itio n , h e s e e k s a r e m a n d fo rco n s id e r a tio n o f c la im e dn e w ly d is c o v e r e de v id e n c e . D E N IE D
. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 70035

2 I. O n 1 7 A u g u s t 1 9 9 6 , th e v ic tim ’ s b o d yw a s d is c o v e r e db yp o lic e a n dh is fam i l y i n hi s hom e i n San A nt oni o, Texas
. H e had be en s hott w i c e i n t he head ands t ab be d i n t he s ho ul de r . The b ul l e t f r ag m e nt s a tt he s c e ne w e r e c o ns i s t e nt
w i t h ha vi ng be e n f

i r e d f r o m api s t o lo w ne d b y t h e v i ct i m . Thi s pi s t o l , a nd the
v ic tim ’ s re dH a r le yD a v id s o n m o to r c y c le , w e r e m is s in gfr o m h is h o m e . A tsom e p oi n tt h at s u m m er, B art ee ha d ask ed an acqu ai n t an ce t o assi st h i m i n r o b b i n ga n dk i l l i n gan e i g h b o r , i n f o r mi n gh i m th i s n e i g h b o r“h a ds o me gol d [ credi t] card s an d a m ot orcyc l e” tha tB art ee w an t ed. A n d, tw o d ays pri or t o t h e di scovery of

t h e vi ct i m ’ s body, B art ee h adi n f orm ed an ot h er acqua i n t an ce, M u n o z , th a t h e in te n d e dto “a c e s o m e w h ite d u d e o u t”

. B a r te e u n s u c c e s s fu lly soli ci tedbo th M u n oz an dsev era loth ers to a ssist h i m i n a c h ie v in gthis resu l t. Th ats am e day , atnearl y m i d n i gh t , B ar t ee ar r ived atM unoz’hom e, r i di ng a H ar l e y D av i ds o n m o t o r c yc l e a nd c l ai m i ng t o c ar r y a gun . Se ve r alw i t n esses id e n tifie dth is m o to r c y c le a s b e in gs im ila ro rid e n tic a l to th e v ic tim ’ s . In A pri l199 7, B art ee w as indic t ed f or c ap i t alm u rder. I n A pri l199 8, on t h e dayt h e t ri al ’ s gu il t p h ase w as t o begi n , one of B art ee’ s at t orneys, Sa w yer, w ho had c onduct ed the m ont h- l ong vo i rdi r e o f the j ury, n ot i f

i ed t he cour tt hat h e h a dd is c o v e r e dt h a t m o r n in gt h a t h e w a s a c q u a in te dw ith th e v ic tim ’ s fa m ily anda s ke d t o w i t hdr aw as Bar t e e ’ s c o - c o uns e l
. Sa w yerinfo r m e d the c o ur the
w as concerned“t h ere m i gh tbe a basi c bui l t
- i n conf l i ctl ater o n in tr i al” as a resul tof

t h i s acqua i n t an ce. H e w as repl aced, an d the t ri alc o u rt d el ayed
r e s u m in gth e tr ia l fo rfo u rw e e k s . I n M a y 1 9 9 8 , t h e j u r y f o u n d Ba r t e e g u i l t y o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r . Att he pu n i shm en tph ase, t w o w om en t est i f i ed to B arte e ’ s h a vi n g sexu al l y assau l t ed t hem atkni fe- poi nti n 1982 w hen t hey w er e t ee nager s. Ba rtee ca l l ed as
w itn e s s e s h is fa th e ra n dap u b lic -s c h o o l ris kco u n s e lo r . T h e ju r yfo u n d , i n t er a lia : (1 ) b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t, th e r e w a s ap r o b a b ilityB a r te e “w o u ldN o. 08- 70035

3 com m i t cri m i n a la cts of violen ce th a t w ou l dcon sti tu te a co n ti n u i n g th rea t t o society”; a n d (2) th ere w ere i n a d eq u a te m i ti ga ti n g circu m stan ces f or B a rtee to be s e nt e nc e d t o l i fe i n pr i s o n, r at he rt han de at h. A de at h s e nt e nc e w as i m po s e d. O n di r ec t appeal , B ar t ee r ai se d 12 i ss ues . Th e Texas C our tof C r i m i nal A pp eal s, i n M ay 20 00, af f i rm ed the convic t i on an d s en t en ce. B art ee di d n otseek
r e v ie w b yth e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite dS ta te s . B ar t ee be gan a s t at e habe as pr oc ee di ng i n January 2 000, r ai si ng 37 is s u e s . D u r in ga n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in g , B a r te e ca lle dfo u rw it n e s s e s : (1 ) h is fat he r ; ( 2) Bar t e e ’ s l e ad t r i al c o uns e l ; ( 3) t he l e adpr o s e c ut o rf r o m t he t r i al ; a nd (4 ) a p r iv a t e in v e s t ig a t o rw h o h e lp e di n t e rv ie w p o t e n t ia l w it n e s s e s fo rB a r t e e ’s def ens e a tt r i al
. I n O c t obe r2005, the s t at e habeas tr i alc our tent er ed f i ndi ngs o f fa c t a n dco n c lu s io n s o f la w a n dre c o m m e n d e dd e n ia l o f r e lie f. In M a r c h 2 0 0 6 , inatw o -p a g e o r d e r , t h e T e x a s C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls ad o pt e d the s t at e ha be as t r i alco ur t ’ s f i ndi ngs o f

fac ta nd c o nc l us i o ns o f l aw and d e n ie dre lie f. I n Fe br uary 20 07 , Ba r t e ef il e dh i s pe t i t i o n f

o rfe de r alha be as r e l i e f, r ai s i ng 31 i ssues. T h at S eptem ber, t h e S t ate f i l ed an answ er and m ot i on f or s u m m ary j udg m e nt
. For t he r e as o ns s t at e d i n i t s 20 3- pa ge o pi ni o n, t he di s t r i c tcourt d e n ie dr e lie f inA u g u s t 2 0 0 8 a n d , in t h a t o p in io n , suasponte den i ed a C O Af or a n yo f B a r te e ’ s cla im s . Bar t e ev . Q uar t e r m an , 5 7 4 F
. S u p p . 2 d6 2 4 , 7 1 4 (W
. D. T e x . 2 0 0 8 ). B a r te e file dan o tic e o f a p p e a l inA u g u s t 2 0 0 8
. T h e di st ri ct court t reat ed i tas an i m pl i citrequest f or a C O A , w h i ch it den i ed that m on t h
. Th at N ovem ber, B a r te e re q u e s te daC O Afr o m o u rco u r t. II. Bar t e e ’ s 2 8 U
. S. C. § 2 25 4 habea s a ppli c at i o n i s s ubj e c tt o t he A n t i t e r r o r i s m and Ef fe c t ive D e at h Pena l t y Act o f 19 96 (AE D PA) , Pub. L. N o. 1 0 4 -1 3 2 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 1 2 1 4 (1 9 9 6 ). E
. g. , Penry v. Joh n son , 5 3 2 U .S

. 7 8 2 , 7 9 2 (20 0 1 ).N o. 08- 70035

4 U n der A E D P A , B art ee m ay n ota pp ealthe den i alof h abea s rel i ef un l ess h e f

i rst
o b ta in s aC O Afr o m e ith e rth e d is tr ic t, o r th is , c o u r t. 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 3 (c ); Mi l ler v. D r e t ke , 404 F
. 3d9 08, 9 12 (5t h C i r. 200 5) (cit ati on s om i t t ed). Th e di st ri ctcourt
m ustf i r stdec i de w het hertogranta CO A ; only if i ti s deni ed byt hatc our tm ay aC O Ao n t h a tis s u e b e re q u e s te dh e r e . F ED . R. A PP . P
. 22(b) ( 1)

. H aving been de ni e d a CO A b y t he di s t r i c t c o ur t , Bar t e e r e que s t s a CO A her e f o re ac h o f

t he f o uri s s ue s di s c us s e d i nf ra . To obt ai n a C O A , B ar t ee m ustm ake “ a s ubst ant i als how i ng of t he deni al of a con sti tu ti on a lri gh t”. 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); se e Miller -E l v. Co ck re ll , 537 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 6 (2 0 0 3 ); S lack v. McD an i el , 529 U
. S

. 473 , 483 (2000 )

. T o m ak e such a show i n g w h en th e d ist ri ctcourt ’ s hab eas den i ali s on t h e m erit s of an i ssue, B ar t ee m ustdem ons t r at e: “r eas onabl e j uri st s c oul d d ebat e w het her(or , f ort hat
m att er, agree t h at) t h e peti t i on shou l d hav e been resolved i n a di f ferent m an n er or th at th e is sues presented w ere adequ ate t o deserve encou ragem en tt o proceed fu r th e r” (r e a s o n a b le -ju r is ts s ta n d a r d). Mi l le r - El , 5 3 7 U. S. a t3 3 6( quot i ng S lack , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 8 4 ). In deci di n g w h et h er t o gran ta C O A , w e can m ak e on l y a threshol d i n qu i ry i n t o the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s ap pl i cat i on of A E D P Ato B art ee’ s c on st i t u t i on alcl ai m s; w e m a yn otconsi der t h e fact u alor l egal m erit s i n sup port of t h ose c l ai m s. Mi l le r - El , 537 U
. S. at336. “W hen a c our tof appeal s si des t eps t hi s pro c es s by f i r s td e c i d i n gt h e me r i t s o f a n a p p e a l , a n dt h e n j u s t i f y i n gi t s d e n i a lo f

aC OA bas ed o n i t s adj udi c at i on o f t he ac t ualm er i t s, i t i s i n es se nce dec i di ng an appeal
w i th ou t j u ri sd i cti on . ” I d. at336- 37. F or purp oses o f

our t h reshol d i n qu i ry, w e are c ogn i zan tt h at, un der AE DP A, t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r twa s r e q u i r e d , wit h l i mit e de x c e p ti o n s d e s c rib e db e l o w, t o d efer to the stat e cou rt ’ s resol u t i on of B art ee’ s cl ai m s. T h ose except i on s t u rn o n th e ch a r a c te ro f th e s ta te -c o u r t’s ru lin g . Fos t e rv . Q uar t e r m an , 466 F. 3d 359, 3 6 5 (5 C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

thN o. 08- 70035

5 Fi r s t , o n q ue s t i o ns o f l aw, a s w e l la s m i xe d que s t i o ns o f l aw and fac t , t he di st ri ctcourtw as requ i red, u n der A E D P A , to d ef er t o t h e st ate- court’ s deci si on u n le s s it “w a s co n tr a r yto , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f, cle a r ly
e s t a b l i s h e dF e d e r a ll a w, a s d e t e r m i n e db yt h e S u p r e m e Co u r t”

. 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ); see Mi l ler , 4 04 F
. 3dat 913
. Th e st ate- court’ s deci si on i s c on si dered
c o n tr a r yto cle a r lye s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l l a w i f it“r e a c h e s ale g a l co n c lu s io n in di rectcon fli ct w it h a pri or deci si on of t h e Su prem e C ou rtor i f i treaches a d iffe r e n t c o n c lu s io n t h a n th e S u p r e m e C o u r t b a s e do n m a te r ia lly in d is tin g u is h a b le fa c ts ”. Mi l ler , 404 F
. 3d at913 ( quot i ng Min iel v. Co ck re ll , 339 F .3d 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 )) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). S econd , un der A E D P A , our t h reshol d i n qu iry m u strecogn i ze the d i st ri ct court’ s obl i gati on t o defer t o t h e st ate- court’ s fact u alf i n di n gs, un l ess t h ey

“ r e s ul t e d i n ade c i s i o n t hatw as b as e d o n a n unr e as o nab l e det e r m i nat i o n of t he fa c t s i n l i g h to f

t h e e v i d e n c e pr e s e n t e di n t h e S t a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g”

. 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 25 4( d) ( 2)

. Al o ng t hatl i ne , t he di s t r i c tcou rtw as r e quir e d t o pr e s um e t he
s t at e - c o ur t ’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs w e r e c o r r e c t ; i n di s t r i c tc o ur t , Bar t e e ha d t o r e but th a t p re su m p tion b yclea r a n dco n v in cin gev id e n ce . 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1 ). M oreover, our t h reshol d i n qu i ry requ i res consi derati on of a C O Arequest agai nstt he bac kdro p of t he e l em ent s of

B ar t ee ’ s und er l yi ng con st i t ut i onal
c la im s . S ee Mi l ler , 4 04 F. 3da t9 13
. N e e dl e s s t o s ay , m e ani ngf ulr e vi e w o f

t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s ru l i n g, f or C O Apu rp ose s, on w h eth er B a rtee m a d e th e req u i sit e 28 U
. S. C

. § 2253(c ) ( 2) “ subs t ant i als how i ng of t he deni alof

a c on sti t ut i onal ri gh t” requi res ou r c on si deri n g t h ese el em en t s. Ini t i al l y, B art ee contends thi s m att er s h ou l d be rem an ded t o di st ri ctcourt i n t he l i ghto f

ne w e vi de nc e : gen et i ct e s t i ng o f b l o o d a nd h airf

o und att he
m ur de rs c e ne w hi c h, hec l ai m s , e st abli shes hi s a c t uali nno c e nc e . I n t he alt e r nat ive , he c o nt e nds he i s e nt i t l e d t o aCO A f o rf o urc l ai m s : ( 1) t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s i m pe r m i s s ibl e com m e nto n Bar t e e ’ s fail ur e t o t e s t i f y; ( 2) t heN o. 08- 70035

6 prosecuti on ’ s fai l u re to di scl ose B rady m ater i al ; ( 3) den i alof coun selan d confli ct of i n t erest ; an d ( 4) i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of coun sel
. F or t h e reasons di scussed in g r e a te rd e ta il, i nf ra , rem an d i s n o t requ i red an d the ot h er f ou r i ssues do n ot
s a tis fyth e a b o v e -s ta te ds ta n d a r d s fo raC O A ’ s b e in gg r a n te d
. A. F o ro b v io u s re a s o n s , B a r te e ’ s p r o c e d u r a l co n te n tio n— th a t w e s h o u ld
r e m a n dt h i s m a t t e rt o d i s t r i c tc o u r tb e c a u s e o f t h e c l a i m e dn e w e v i d e n c e (DNA) “e s ta b lis h in gh is a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ”— w ill b e co n s id e r e db e fo r e e x a m in in gh is C O Are q u e s ts
. S ee Thomps o n v . Q uar t e r m an , 292 F
. A pp ’ x 277 , 284

- 85 (5t h C i r. 2008) (unp ubl i shed ) (c ons i der i ng c l ai m ed pr oc edur aler r or s i n fede r alhabeas proceedi n gp rio r t o exam i n i n g C O Arequest)

. I ti s un cl ear w h et h er B art ee presents h i s cl ai m ed actual i n n ocence as groun ds f or hab eas reli ef, or w h et h er h e asser t s s u ch i n n ocence as part of hi s ot h er c l ai m s f

or w h i ch h e requests a C O A

. W e w i l las sum e the l at t er , i t s bei ng w ell es t abl i she d, of c our se , t hatac t ual i nno c e nc e i s notgr o unds fo rfe de r alhabe as re l i e f f r o m as t at e - c o ur tc o nvi c t i o n. Se eHe r r e r a v . Col l i ns , 5 0 6 U .S

. 3 9 0 , 4 0 0 (19 9 3 ). Ita p p e a r s B a r te e a d v a n c e s h is “a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ” cla im a s s u p p o r t fo rh is l esser - i n clu d e d -offe n se -in str u ctio n a n din e ffec tiv e -a ss ista n ce -of-co u n selcl ai m s. A lth o u g h n o t c le a r lya r tic u la te d , th e cla im e de x c u l p a to r ye v id e n c e w o u ld presum ably be u sed t o dem on st rat e t h e requ i si t e prej u di ce f or an inef

fect ivea ssistan ce claim
. B a rtee fail edto pre sen t su ch a cl a i m to the state h a b ea s cou rt; bu tt h e di st ri ctcourt coul d c on si der i t becau se t h e S t ate di d not obj ect
. B ecau se such a cl ai m w as not c on si dere d b yth e stat e ha beas court, t h e di st ri ctcourt
rev i ew edi t de no vo . B art ee contended i n di st ri ctcourtt h at th e j u ry s h o u ld ha ve been perm i tted to c on si der t h e l esseri n cl u ded of fen ses of

robbery or agg ravated
r o b b e r y , o n t h e fa c t u a lt h e o r yt h a tB a r t e e r o b b e dt h e v i c t i m b u td i dn o tk i l lh i m. B a r te e c la im s t w o g a n gm e m b e r s co m m itt e dth e m u r d e r . ( N ot ably, B ar t ee hasN o. 08- 70035

7 n otrequested a C O Af rom our courton h i s l esser - i n cl u ded

- of fen se- i n st ructi on c la im .) T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed rel i ef for t h i s clai m , accor di n g t o B art ee, pr i m a r i l y d u e t o a l a c k o f e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s a l t e r n a t iv e t h e o r y o f t he
m u rd er. B a rtee u rg es o u r rem a n d i n g th i s m a tter t o d i stri ct co u rt f or itto consi der his l esser - i n cl u ded

- of fen se cl ai m s i n t h e l i gh t of “ t h i s n ew l y di scovered
ev i d en ce”. B a r t e e cit e s n o a u th o r ityins u p p o r t o f h is p r o p o s itio n th a t t h is “n e w ly di scovered e v i den ce” com pel s r em an di n g f or new consi derati on of hi s l esser i n cl u ded

- of

fen se c l ai m s. N ot i n g t h at act u ali n n ocence is n o t a groun ds f or fed e ra l h a b e a s re li e f, th e S ta te a lso co n te n d s B a rte e ’ s e v id e n ce w o u ldn o t sa tisfy th is s ta n d a r dina n ye v e n t. A ssum i n g w e can consi der t h i s n ew D N A evi den ce— a poi n t t h e S t ate does
n otcontes t

— i tw ou l d n o t a lter t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s ana l ysi s. Th e di st ri ctcourt di d n otrej ectB art ee’ s l esser - i n cl u ded

- of fen se c l ai m s because of an ab se n ce of
e vi de nc e f

r o m w hi c h a r at i o nalj ur o rc o ul d ha vec o nc l ude d o t he r s w e r e pr e s e nt t hatni ght
. I nst ead, i tc onc l uded t her e w as no e vi denc e f r om w hi c h a r at i onal ju r o rc o u ldh a v e c o n c lu d e d s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n B a r t e e h a ds t a b b e dth e v ic t im ’s t hro ataf

t erhe had be en s hotand ki l l ed. The c our tnot ed thatB ar t ee had i de nt i f i e d “ no e vi de nc e i n t he t r i alr e c o r d e s t abli shi ng t hate i t he r[ o f t he g ang me mb e r s h e a l l e g e s t o h a v e mu r d e r e dt h e v i c t i m] e v e ra s s a u l t e d[t h e v i c t i m]
w ith a k n ife ”. B art ee , 5 7 4 F . S u p p . 2 da t 6 7 9
. B a r te e d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th is
c o n c lu s io n . M o r e o ve r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t c o nc l ude d t hat , e ve n if Bar t e e di d no t“f

i r e t he fatal sh ots[, ]
. . . the ev i d en ce p erm i ts on l y o n e ra tio n a l in fe r en ce: a cti n g w i th t he i nt e ntt o r o b [t he v i c t i m ] , [ Bar t e e ] a t t e m pt e d t o a c t ive l y pa r t i c i pa t e i n t he fatal assau l t u pon [t h e vi ct i m ] by s t abb i n g h i m bef ore th e fatalshots w ere f i red
a n dth e n s la s h in gh is n e c ka fte rt h e fa ta l s h o ts w e r e f ir e d ”. I d. at 680
. U n derN o. 08- 70035

8 th e T e x a s la w o f p a r tie s , th e d is tr ic t co u r t co n c lu d e d , B a r te e w o u l d b e lia b le
even if an ot h er f

i red t h e fatalshot. A cc o rdi n gl y, t h e D N Aevi den ce t o w h i ch B art ee ref

ers proves at m ostt h at s om eon e ot h er th an B art ee w as present, a fact
n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith th e “o n e ra tio n a l in fe r e n c e ” t h e e v id e n c e p e r m itt e d
. A l on g t h i s li n e, t h e 3 Sep t em ber 200 8 S erol ogy/D N AR eport w h i ch B art ee appended t o hi s br i ef her e no t es t hat i tdi d notc om par e the hairorbl oo d t o that
o f th e v ic tim b e c a u s e n o s a m p le h a db e e n s u b m itt e d
. Itis , th e r e fo r e , e n tir e ly p o s s ib le th is D N Ae v id e n c e p r o v e s n o th in ga t a ll. A ssum i n g t h e D N A evi den ce proves an ythi n g, i tdoes not al t er t h e di st ri ct
c our t ’ s anal ys i s t hatt her e w as no e vi denc e i n t he re cord to s upporta r at i onal j u ror’ s c on cl u di n g som eon e ot h er th an B art ee u sed a kn i fe on the vi ct i m . B art ee has no tc hal l enged t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s c h a rac t er i zat i on o f t he r ec or d, nor , as
n ot ed, ha s he soug h ta C O Aregardi n g t h e l esser - i n cl u ded

- of fe n se -inst ructi on is s u e . A c c o r d in g ly , h is re m a n dre q u e s t is w ith o u t m e r it. B. A s not ed, B ar t ee r eques t s a C O A f or eac h of

t he f oll ow i ng f

ourc l ai m s: ( 1) t he pr os ec ut orc om m ent ed o n B ar t ee ’ s fai l ure t o t es t i f y; ( 2) a B rady vi ol at i on; ( 3) d e n ia l o f c o u n s e l a n dco n flic t o f in te r e s t; a n d(4 ) in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. A g a in , n o n e s a tis fie s th e s ta n d a r dfo raC O A ’ s b e in gg r a n te d
. 1. B art ee contends the prosecutor , i ncl osi n g argu m en t , com m en t ed on Bar t e e ’ s fail ur e t o t e s t i f y att r i al , i n vi o l at i o n o f t he Fi f t h Am e ndm e nt
. Dur i ng c l o s i ng ar gum e nta tt he pu n i s hm e ntpha s e , the pr o s e c ut o r , i n r e fe r r i ng t o o ne of B a rtee’ s ch a ra cter w i tn ess es w h o h a dde scribed B a rtee a s “a m od el prison er”, asked : “ Is a m odelpri soner som ebod yw h o doesn ’ tadm i tt h ey h ave com m i t t ed
acri m e?” T h e tri a lcou rt ove r r u ledB a rtee’ s obj ectionto t h i s com m en t,
c o n s tr u in git m e r e lya s are fe r e n c e to B a r te e ’ s co n tin u e da s s e r tio n s o f h is i nno c e nc e o f

t he t w o s e xua la s s ault s o f w hi c h he pr e vi o us l y hadb e e n c o nvi c t e d.N o. 08- 70035

9 The pr o s e c ut o rs ubs e que nt l y c o m m e nt ed on B art e e ’ s fail ur e t o “ o w n up t o o ne b it . . . o f

r e s p o n s ib ility”. T h e tr ia l co u r t s u s ta in e dB a r te e ’ s o bje c tio n to th is
com m en tan d i n st ructed t h e ju ry to d isr egardi t , bu tden i ed h i s m ot i on f or a m is tr ia l. B art ee contes t ed these rul i n gs i n hi s di re ct a pp eal
. R egard i n g t h e f i rst
c o m m e nt , t he T e xa s C o ur tof C r i m i nalA ppe al s co nc l ude d t hat , i n co nt e xt , t he
com m en tdi d n otref

er t o B art ee’ s fai l u re t o test i f y an d, inst ead , cl earl y ref erred t o hi s s t at e m e nt s t o o ne o f hi s c har ac t e rw i t ne s s e s t hat he w as no t guil t y o f t he
sexu ala ssault s f

or w h i ch h e p revi ou sly h adb een con vi ct ed. T h e T exas C ou rtof Cri m i nalAppe al s a c kno w l e dg e d thatt h e s e c o nd c o m m e ntw as a m bi guo us en ough t hat i t c oul d have bee n vi ew ed as a c om m ent on B ar t ee ’ s fa i l u re to t e s t i f y. I tco nc l ude d, howev e r , t hatt he t r i alc o ur t ’ s i ns t r uc t i o n t o di s r e ga r d the
c o m m e n t w a s e n o u g h to cu r e a n yp o s s ib le e r r o r . Bar t e e a l s o r ai s e d the s e c l ai m s i n hi s s t at e ha be as pr o c e e di ng, b u tt he st at e habe as c our thel d t he pr i orc ons i deration o f t hi s c l ai m on dir ec tappeal pr e c l ude d the i rr e vi e w i n the s t at e ha be as pr o c e e di ng. I the l d, i n t he al t erna t ive, t h at i f

t h e cl ai m s di f

fered f rom t h ose r ai sed on di rectapp eal , t h ey c o u ldh a v e b e e n ra is e dth e n a n dw e r e n o t a p p r o p r ia te b a s e s fo rh a b e a s re lie f. In den yi n g federalha beas rel i ef on thi s i ssue, t h e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t h a tn o n e o f t h e c o m m e n t s c o u ldh a v e b e e n c o n s t r u e d a s r e fe r r in gto B a r t e e ’s fai l u re t o t est i f

y. Th e di st ri ctcourtal so co n clu ded t h at, even if t h ere w ere am bi gu i t y regardi n g t h e secon d com m en t , t h e t ri alcourt ’ s i n st ructi n g t h e j u ry to d is r e g a r dit “e lim in a te da n yth r e a to f p r eju d ic e to p e tit io n e r”. L a s tly , it concl u ded t h at any error ari si n g f rom the cl osi n g argu m en tw ou l d be h arm l ess. A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ctco u rt concl u ded t h at, un der A E D P A , t h e st ate- court
r eje c tio n o f th is c la im “w a s n e ith e r c o n tr a r y to , n o r in v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le
a p p lic a tio n o f, cle a r lye s ta b lis h e dF e d e r a l L a w ”.N o. 08- 70035

10 B ar t ee c ont ends t hatt he di st r i c tc ourt and Texas C our tof C r i m i nal A p p e a ls c a m e to d if

fe r e n tc o n c lu s io n s r e g a r d in gth e m e a n in go f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’s
c o m m e nt s , t he Te xas court f i ndi ng t he s e c o nd c o m m e nta m bi guo us b utt he di s t r i c t c o ur t f

i ndi ng i t no t a r e fe r e nc e t o t he fail ur e t o t e s t i f y. Bar t e e c o nt e nds t he d i s t r i c tc o ur tt he r e b yi m p r o p e r l ym a d e f i nd i ng s o f

fac twhe n AED PA
com pel l ed i tt o defer t o th ose by t h e st ate court. A ccor di n gl y, B art ee asser t s a CO A sh o ul d b e g r ant e d o n t hi s i s s ue b e c aus e , i n vi e w o f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a nd t he Te xa s Cour to f

Cr i m i nalAppe al s ’h aving r e ac he d d i f fe r e ntc o nc l us i o ns
r egar di ng t he m eani ng of the s ec ond com m ent , reas onabl e j uri st s al r eady have di sagreed on t h i s i ssue. Bar t e e ’ s c o nt e nt i o ns fail f o r at l e as tt w o r e as o ns . Fi r s t , he m i s r e ad s t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s opi n i on . Th e di st ri ctcourtdoes n ots i m ply c o nc l ude t he s e c o nd
com m en tw as m erely a ref erence t o B art ee’ s conti n u ed d ecl arati on s of i n n ocence
r e ga r di ng t he s e xua la s s ault s . ( O f c o ur s e , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t e nga gei n de
novo r e vi e w o f

t he s e c l ai m s ; i t s a nalys i s o f Bar t e e ’ s c l ai m s w as o nl y t o de t e r m i ne w h e th e r , u n d e rA E D P A , th e s ta te -c o u r t d e c is io n in v o lv e da n u n r e a s o n a b le ap pl i c at i o n o f

c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d l aw. ) I ns t e ad , t he di s t r i c tco ur tw as a pplyi ng th e fra m e w o rk of Co tton v. Co ck re ll , 34 3 F. 3d 74 6, 7 51 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) ( quo t i ng Jackson v. Joh n son , 1 94 F. 3d6 41 , 6 52 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 9) ) , w hi c h ho l ds ac o m m e nt do e s no tv i o l at e t he F i f t h Am e ndm e ntunl e s s “t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s m anife s ti nt e nt i n m ak i n gt h e rem ark m u stha ve been t o com m en ton the defenda n t ’ s s i l en ce, o r th e c h a r a c te r o f th e r e m a r k m u s t h a v e b e e n s u c h th a t th e ju r yw o u ld
n a tu ra l l y a n dn ece ssa ril y co n stru e ita s aco m m en t on the de fen d a n t’ s si l en ce”. T h e di st rict co u rtm erely n ot ed that t h ese c om m en t s, i n context , nei t h er “m a n ifes te dap ro se cu to ria l in te n t t o c o m m e n t o np e tition e r’s fa il u re to tes tify att r i al , [ nor] w er e o f s uch a c harac t eras t o nec es sa r i l y have bee n c ons t r ued by th e ju r ya s a c o m m e n t o n p e tit io n e r ’ s fa ilu r e to te s tify ”. B art ee , 574 F. Supp. 2d at 684. A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ct court w as not m ak i n g a f i n di n g of

fact , bu tw as,N o. 08- 70035

11 i ns t e ad , a pplyi ng o urpr e c e de ntt o t he fac t s o f t hi s case t o de t e r m i ne t he
reasona bl en ess, un der A E D P A , of t h e st ate- court resolu t i on of t h e i ssue. S econd ly, t h i s i s onl y on e of t h ree al t erna t ive reasons given by the di st ri ct court i n sup port of

it s con cl u si on tha t , u n der A E D P A , the stat e- court resol u t i on o f th i s c l a i m w a s n o t u n r e a s o n a b le
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o n o te dth a t, e v e n if t he r e w e r e a m bi guit y, i tha d b e e n c ur e d b y t he t r i alc o ur t ’ s i ns t ructi o n t o t he ju r yt o d is r e g a r dth e co m m e n ts
. F in a lly , it n o te d th a t t h e s e co m m e n ts , e v e n if i m perm i s s ibl e , w e r e ha r m l e s s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d n ot , as B art ee now c ont ends, “ det er m i n[ e] i ndependent l y t hatt he pr os ec ut o r ’ s r e m a r k wasn o twhat th e tr ia l co u r t h a dfo u n dit to b e ”. N o t ab ly , Ba r t e emak e s n oa t t e m ptt o de m o ns t r at e , und e rAE D PA , ho w t he
s t at e - c o ur t c o nc l us i o n t he r e w as no vi o l at i o n o f Bar t e e ’ s Fi f

t h Am e ndm e ntr i ght
w a s a n u n rea son a b l e a p p l i ca ti on o f cl ea rly esta b l i sh edl a w . In su m , h e fail s to dem on st rat e t h at j u ri st s of reason coul d d ebate t h e d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s resol u t i on of th is cla im
. 2. B a r t e e c o n t e n d s a C O A s h o u ld b e g r a n t e d r e g a r d in g t h e p r o s e c u t io n ’s al l egedfai l u re t o di scl ose m ater i al s itw as requir ed to di scl ose un der B r ady v. Mar y land , 3 73 U
. S. 8 3 ( 19 63 )

. H e b as e s t he c l ai m e d Bra dyv i o l at i o n o n t he
a s s e r t io n th a t , “ [w ]i t h in afe w m o n t h s a ft e rt h e t r ia l” , t w o o f t h e S t a t e ’s
w i tn ess es re ceive d“veryfa vo ra b l e d ea l s on the i r cas es”. B art ee pu rsued thi s B rady cl ai m bef ore t h e st ate h abea s court. T h at c ou rt rej ect ed i t , f

i n di n g: “ B art ee presented no evi den ce t o est abli sh the exi st en ce of
a n y‘ d e a ls ’b e tw e e n th e p r o s e c u tio n a n dw itn e s s e s ”. T h e d is t r ic tc o u r tc o n c lu d e dth a t , u n d e rA E D P A , t h e s t a t e h a b e a s c o u r t ’s
reso l u ti on of t h is c la im w a s re a s o n a b le b e c a u s e , in tera lia , un der Knox v. Joh n son , 2 2 4 F. 3 d4 7 0 , 4 8 2 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q uo t i ng G ood w i n v. Joh n son , 132N o. 08- 70035

12 F
. 3 d16 2 , 18 7 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 8 )) , “ a n e b u l ou s ex p ecta ti on of h elp from the state

. . . i s n ot B rady m a te r ia l”. In sup port of

hi s Bra dyc l ai m , B ar t ee of fer ed e vi denc e i n di st r i c tc our tt hat had n o t been presented to th e s ta t e ha beas court. A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourt
c o n c lu d e dth is e v id e n c e w o u ldn o t h a v e a l t e r e d its a n a ly s is o f th e cla im , it
c onc l uded t hat , be c ause t hi s evi denc e had not bee n pre se nt ed t o t he s t at e habe as c o u r t, it c o u ldn o t c o n s id e rit. A ss um i ng a rg u e n do w e c an c o ns i de rBar t e e ’ s ne w e vi de nc e , he
n e v e r th e le s s fa i l s to e s ta b lis h h is e n tit le m e n t t o aC O Ao n th is is s u e . T h is
e v id e n c e e s ta b li s h e s o n lyth a t t w o o f th e S ta te ’ s w itn e s s e s re c e iv e dfa v o r a b le d is p o s itio n s in th e ir o w n c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g s , su b s e q u e n t t o th e irte s tim o n yin B a rtee’ s tri a l
. H e h a s p rese n tedn o ev i d en ce of a n a gr ee m en t b etw ee n th e S tate and t he w i t nes se s. A c c or di ngl y, at m os t , he has es t abli she d t hes e w i t nes se s had t he e ar l i er - des c r ibed “ nebul ous expec t at i on o f hel p f r om t he s t at e”

. Bart ee has
n o t , t h e r e fo r e , e s t a b li s h e dt h a tj u r is t s o f r e a s o n w o u ldd e b a t e t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s resol u t i on of

hi s Bra dycla im
. 3. B a r t e e c o n t e n d s h e w a s d e n ie d c o u n s e l b e c a u s e S a w y e r , o n e o f B a r t e e ’s at t o r ne ys , w i t hdr e w a f t e rdi s c o ve r i ng he kne w t he v i c t i m ’ s fam i l y, a nd a f t e rhe hadr e pr e s e nt e d hi m duri ng t he i nve s t i ga t i o n f o rt r i ala nd j ur y s e l e c t i o n. M i cha elSa w yer b egan servi n g as cou n selon or abou t1 M arch 19 98. V oi r di re bega n on 9 M ar c h 1998, and a j ury w as s el ec t ed by 8 A pril
. O n 13 A pril , the day th e tr ia l’ s g u ilt phase w as t o begi n, Saw yeri nf or m ed the t r i alc our tt hathe w as ac qua i nt e d w i t h t he vi c t i m ’ s fam i l y andas ke d t o w i t hdr aw as c o uns e l , c i t i ng t he p o te n tia l co n flic t. Acc o r di ng t o Bar t e e , Sa w ye r ’ s pr i m ar y r e s po ns ibil i t y w as j ur y s e l e c t i o n. B ar t ee c ont ends t hatone of t w o thi ngs m ustbe t ru e: eit herSaw yerhad p e r fo r m e d s o li t t le in v e s t ig a t io n t h a t h e d id n o t r e a li z e h e k n e w t h e v ic t im ’sN o. 08- 70035

13 fam i l y, or h e k n ew of the conf l i ctan d n egl ect ed to i n f orm t h e courtor B art ee of i t
. I n e i t he re ve nt , Bar t e e c o nt e nds , he was de pr ive d o f hi s Sixth Am e ndm e nt
r ig h t t o co u n s e l. T h e st ate hab eas cou rt rej ect ed B art ee’ s c l ai m , f i n di n g both that B art ee di d no t“ pr o duc e a ny s ubs t ant ivee vi de nc e e s t ab l i s hi ng”ac o nf l i c to f i nt e r e s ta nd t h a tB a r t e e h a dfa il e dto s h o w th e c o n fl ic th a d a n a d v e r s e im p a c to n S a w y e r ’s p e r fo r m a n c e . Th e st at e habeas c our t al so f ound i t r el evant t hat Saw yerw as never B ar t ee ’ s so l e c ounse l
. “ [A] tal lr el evantt i m es B ar t ee w as r epr es ent ed by
a n o th e rco m p e te n t a tt o r n e yw h o p r o v id e de ffe c tiv e re p r e s e n ta tio n ”. I n de nyi ng fe de r alha be as r e l i e f f o r t hi s c l ai m , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und: t he sta te h a b e a s co u rt’s co n clu d in gth e a ctu a l con fli ct o f i n te re st s ta n d a rd of C uyler v . Sul l i v an , 4 4 6 U .S

. 335 , 348 ( 198 0) , di d n otapp l y t o B art ee w as not
un r e a s o na b l e , u nd e rAED PA, b e c a us e Ba r t e e c o ul ds ho w ne i t he ra n a c t ual
c o n flic t n o ra n ya d v e r s e e ffe c t o n h is re p r e s e n ta tio n . The di s t r i c tc o ur tre ac he d t he sa m e co nc l us i o n, unde rA ED PA , r e ga r di ng B art ee’ s c l ai m t o a presum pti on of prej u di ce un der Un itedS ta tes v. C ro n ic , 466 U
. S. 648 ( 1984)

. Becau se h e w as r epr es ent ed thro ughoutvo i rdi r e b y hi s l ead
c o u n s e l a s w e ll a s b y S a w y e r , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r tc o n c lu d e dth a t , e v e n if S a w y e r ’s i nves t i gat i on w as i nadequat e, i tw oul d nothave r i se n t o the l eve l of be i ng a t ot al fa ilu re “to su bj ect th e p rose cu ti on ’ s ca se to m ea n i n gfu lad ve rsa ri a ltesti n g”. L astly, t h e di st ri ctcourt fo u n d B art ee ha d “presented t h e st ate hab eas court
w ith n o e v id e n c e s h o w in g. . . S a w y e r ’ s re la tio n s h ip w ith th e [v ic tim ’ s ] fa m ily

. . . ha d a ny e f

fe c t s . . . a nal o go us t o t he e xt r e m e s i t uat i o ns i n whi c h t he S u prem e C ou rt” ha s presum ed p rej u di ce un der C ro n ic
. B art ee , 574 F. Supp. 2d
a t 6 4 5
. A c c or di ngl y, under A E D PA , t he di st r i c tc our tc onc l uded t he st at e habe as c our t ’ s r ej ec t i on o f

t hes e c l ai m s “ w as neit hercontr ar y t o, nori nvolved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f, clear l y e st abl i she d Feder all aw , . . . noranN o. 08- 70035

14 u n r e a s o n a b le d e te r m in a tio n o f th e fa c ts inlig h t o f th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te din [B a r te e ’ s ] s ta te h a b e a s co r p u s p r o c e e d in g”. Id

. a. B art ee seeks a C O Ai n o rd er t o app eala conf l i ct
- of

- i n t erestcl ai m un der C uyler . Th ere, t h e C ou rtadd ress ed “w h et h er th e m ere possibi l i t y of a conf l i ct
o f i nt e r e s t w ar r ant s t he c o nc l us i o n t hat t he de fe nda nt w as de pr ive d o f hi s r i ght to co u n s e l”. C uyler , 446 U
. S

. at 345
. U n l i ke i n ef fect ive- assi st an ce- of

- cou n sel
c l ai m s, go verned by St r i c kland ’s prej u di ce r equ i rem en t s, un der C uyler ,
“ prej u di ce i s p resum ed i f the defenda n tsh ow s that a n act u alconf l i ctof i n t erest
a d v e r s e lya ffe c te dh is la w y e r ’ s p e r fo r m a n c e ”. B ee ts v
. S co tt , 65 F. 3d 1258, 1265 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) ( en banc ) (c i t i ng C uyler , 4 4 6 U .S

. a t 3 4 8 ). As o urc o ur tno t e d i n B ee ts , 65 F
. 3dat 126 5, “ [t] h e Su prem e C ou rtha s not
e xp and e d C uyler’ s p r e s u m edpr ejud ice sta n d a rdbe yo n dca s e s in v o lv in gm u ltip le repre sentati on ”

. Th ere i s nothi n g i n t h e rec ord sugg est i n g S aw yer ever repre sent edt h e vi ct i m ’ s fam i l y, on l y t h at h e kn ew t h em soc i al l y. Fu rt h erm ore, e ve n when C uyl erm i ghtb e a ppli c ab l e , “ [ p] r ej udi c e i s pr e s um e d o nl y i f t he defenda n tdem on st rat es t h at c ou n sel‘ act ivel y represented confli ct i n g i n t erest s’
a n dth a t‘a n a c t u a l c o n fl ic to f i n t e r e s ta d v e r s e lya ffe c t e dh is la w y e r ’s p e r fo r m a n c e ’”

. S t ri cklan dv. W ash i ngt on , 4 66 U
. S. 6 68 , 6 92 ( 19 84 ) ( quo t i ng C uyler , 4 4 6 U .S . a t3 5 0 ). B a r t e e h a s n e i t h e re s t a b li s h e dth a tS a w y e r ’s
a cq u a i n tan ce w i th th e victi m ’ s fam i l y con sti tu teda n a ctu a lco n fli ct of i n teres t,
n o rth a t S a w y e r ’ s cla im e dco n flic t a d v e r s e lya ffe c te dh is p e r fo r m a n c e . In s h o r t, C uyleri s s i m ply i n ap pl i c ab l e t o Bar t e e ’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt
c la im s . S ee a lso Ki rkpa t ri ck v. B u t ler , 870 F. 2d 276, 284 ( 5t h C i r . 1989) ( S t atem en tO n P et it i on f or R eh eari n g an d S u ggesti on f or R eh eari n g E n B an c) ( “ [ F ] ri en dsh i p w i t h an d p ast representat i on of m em bers of

a vi ct i m ’ s fam i l y does
no tpr e c l ude a n a t t o r ne y f r o m r e pr e s e nt i ng t he de fe nda ntw he n, a s h er e , t he at t or ney r eve al ed hi s r el at i ons hi p t o t he defendantan d the c our t” )

. A c c or di ngl y,N o. 08- 70035

15 reasona bl e j u ri st s c ou l d n otdeba t e t h e di st ri ct cou rt ’ s c on cl u si on t h at, un der A E D P A , t h e st ate hab eas co u rt’s rej ect i onof B art ee’ s C uylercl ai m w as not
u n reasona bl e. b. I n C ro n ic , the C ou rt co n sider edw h i ch “circu m stan ces . . . are so l i k ely to prej u di ce th e accused that” a petit i on er need n otprove act u alprej u di ce w h en ad va nc i ng an i ne f

fe c t ive - as s i s t anc e - o f

- c o uns e lc l ai m . 4 66 U
. S. a t6 58
. The Cour tr e c o gni z e d thr e e e xc e pt i o ns t o t he no r m al r ul e t hatape t i t i o ne ra dv anc i ng anin ef f ective- assi st an ce- of

- coun selcl ai m m u stprove a ctu a l pr eju d ice inadd iti on to d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e . S ee B el lv . Cone , 535 U
. S. 685, 695- 96 ( 2002) ( s u mma r i z i n g t h e t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s f r o m C ro n ic)

. U n der C ro n ic , pr ej udi c e c an be pre sum ed: ( 1) if

t he pet i t i oner“i s deni ed the pr es enc e o f c ounse lata c r i t i c al
s ta g e ”, i d. a t 6 9 5 (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n s o m itt e d); (2 ) if

“ c ounse lent i r elyf

a i l s t o s ubj ec tt he pr os ec ut i on’ s c as e t o m eani ngf uladve r sa r i al te s tin g”, C ro n ic , 466 U
. S

. at 659 ; an d ( 3) “w h ere c ou n seli s c al l ed u pon t o render
a ssistan ce un d er circu m stan ces w h ere com p eten t cou n sel ve ry l i k ely cou l dn ot”, B ell , 5 35 F
. 3da t6 96. A s di scussed bel ow , becau se non e of t h e C ronic e xc e pt i o ns a p p l i es, B a rtee h a s n ot d em on strate dtha t j u ri sts of rea son cou l ddisa gr ee w i th t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c on cl u si on t h at, un der A E D P A , the stat e court ’ s r ej ect i on of B art ee’ s C ro n iccl ai m w as n ota n u n reasona bl e a pp l i cat i on of cl earl y est abli shed la w . R egar di ng t he f i r stex c ept i on, as t he di st r i c tc our tnot ed, B ar t ee w as
r e p r e s e n te dth r o u g h o u t h is tr i a lb yh is le a dco u n s e l. A c c o r d in g ly , e v e n if Sawye rw e r e s o m e ho w c o ns t r uc t ive l y ab s e nt , Bar t e e c anno t s ay he w as w i t ho ut
c o u n s e l a t a cr itic a l s ta g e . Reg ar di ng t he s e c o nd e xc e pt i o n, Bar t e e do e s no te ve n a ppe art o c o nt e nd t hatSaw yerfai l ed t o s ubj ec tt he prose c ut i on’ s c as e t o m eani ngf uladve r sa r i al te s tin g .N o. 08- 70035

16 Fi nall y, he do e s no ts ugg e s tho w t hi s c as e i s s i m i l ar t o t ho s e i n whi c h t he th ir de x c e p tio n h a s b e e n fo u n dto a p p ly
. T h e c a s e s B a r t e e c it e s d o n o tm a k e d e b a t a b le th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s concl u si on regardi n g h i s C ro n iccla im
. B u rdine v. Joh n son , 262 F. 3d 336, 338 (5th C i r. 20 0 1 ) (enba n c), f ou n dthe f

i rst C ronic excepti on t o app l y w h en peti t i on er’ s c ou n selha d sl ept du ri n g porti on s of t h e t ri aldu ri n g w h i ch evi den ce a gai nstdef

endantw as adm i t t ed. Therei s no as se r t i on her e thatSaw yerw as abs entoras l ee p d u ri n g som e s t age of t he pr oc ee di ngs. Bart ee ’ s c l ai m i s t hat S a w y e rd idh is jo b p o o r ly , n o t t h a t h e fa ile dto d o it a t a ll. B art ee cit es Sat t e r w hi t ev . Texas , 4 86 U
. S. 2 49 , 2 56 ( 19 88 ) , f o r the proposi t i on t h at “ [ s] om e const i t u t i on alvi ol ati on s . . . b y t h ei r very nature cast
so m u ch dou bt on t h e fai rness of t h e t ri alprocess t h at, as a m att er of l aw , t h ey can nev er be c on si dered h arm l ess”

. B a rte e contends: becau se Saw yer “w as so unfam i l i arw i t h the fac t s o f t he c as e t hat he di dn’ t e ve n r e ali z e t hathe kne w t he vi c t i m a n d h i s fa m i l y , t h i s Co u r t c a n h a v e n o c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e fa i r n e s s o f t he
e n tir e tr ia l”. S a tterw h ite , how ever , i s ent i r ely ir r el evant
. The s t at e habe as court di d n otem pl oy h arm l ess- erroran al ysi s i n rej ect i n g B art ee’ s C ro n icc l a i m, nordi d t he di st r i c t c our t i n det er m i ni ng, und er A E D PA , t hat t he st at e habe as c o u r t’s d e c is io n w a s n o t u n r e a s o n a b le . A c c o r d in g ly, S a tterw h ite h as no ef fecton B art ee’ s C ro n iccla im
. B art ee cit es Will i am s v. T aylor , 52 9 U
. S

. 36 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ), bu t Wi l l i a msi n volved
a n a p p li ca tion of St r i c kland , n ot C ro n ic
. Wi l l i a ms , si m i l arl y, h as n o beari n g on B art ee’ s C ro n iccl ai m s. Fi nall y, Bar t e e con t e nds pr ej udi c e s ho ul d b e e va l uat e d un de rt he

“ st an da rd of

ha rm . . . app l i ed w h en an attorneyl aboredun der a confli ctof i n t erest”. B a rte e ci t es Peri l lo v. Joh n son , 7 9 F .3 d4 4 1 , 4 4 8 (5 C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), in th
s u p p o r t o f th is cla im
. Per illo , how ever, dealtw i th t h e C uylerpr ej udi c e s t and ar d.N o. 08- 70035

17 A s n o te d , sup ra , j uri st s of r eason w ou l d notdeba t e the appl i c abi l i t y velnon of C uyler . A c c o r d in g ly , th is co n te n tio n is s im ila r lym e r itle s s . I n s um , Bar t e e ha s no te s t ab l i s he d thatj ur i st s of reaso n woul d f

i nd the di st ri ctcourt ’ s r esol u t i on of hi s C ro n icor C uylercla im s d e b a ta b le
.

4. B a r te e a ls o s e e k s aC O Ato a p p e a l th e d i s t r ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is St r i c klandc l ai m f

or i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

c ounse l
. H e m ai nt ai ns c ounse lw as i nef fec t ive athi s t r i al ’ s gui l tand puni shm entphase s. I n hi s st at e habe as p r o c e e d in g , B a r t e e c a ll e d fo u r w it n e s s e s : (1 ) h is fa t h e r ; (2 ) C a l l a h a n , B a r t e e ’s l ea d tri a l cou n sel; (3) th e l ea d p rose cu tor from tri a l ; a n d (4) a p r iva te in v e s tig a to rw h o a s s is te dB a r te e ’ s a tt o r n e y s a t t r ia l. H e d idn o tc a llC a ll a h a n ’s
c o - c o uns e lf

r o m t r i al , nordi d hea s k Cal l aha n a bo ut“t he s ubj e c t ivet ho ugh t p r o c e s s e s a n ds tr a te g icre a s o n in gu n d e r l y in g[h is ] d e c is io n -m a k in g. . . p a r tic u la r l yw ith re g a r dto co u n s e l’ s d e c is io n s n o t t o in v e s tig a te p o te n tia lly
a d v a n ta g e o u s fa c tu a l m a tt e r s m o r e th o r o u g h ly”. B art ee , 574 F. Supp. 2d at634. H e si m i l ar l y “ i nt r o duc e d not e s t i m o ny f r o m a ny w i t ne s s s ugg e s t i ng t hata ny ad dit i o nal , a dm i s s ibl e , e xc ul pa t o ry, m i t i ga t i ng, o rfav o r ab l e i m pe ac hm e nt
e v id e n c e e x is te da t t h e tim e o f . .

. tr ia lw h ic h co u ldh a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e d
. . . th r o u g h m o r e th o r o u g h in v e s tig a tio n ”. I d. T h e sta te h a b e a s c o u rt c o n sid e re d , a n drejec te d, B art ee’ s St r i c klandc l a i m, c onc l udi ng B ar t ee h ad fai l ed t o pr oduc e a ny evi denc e e st abl i shi ng: ( 1) w hat ad di t i on alevi den ce w ou l d h ave been di scovered had hi s c o u n selperf orm ed addi t i onali nves t i gat i on; ( 2) “t hatdef ens e c ounse lfai l ed t o w or k as a t eam ” ; ( 3)
w h a t un ca l l edex p ert w itn ess es w ere av a i l a b l e a n dw ou l dh a ve be en h elpfu lto t he de fe ns e ; ( 4) hi s c o uns e lw as us i ng, o ri m pa i r e d b y t he us e o f, a l c o ho ldur i ng t h e t ri al ; ( 5) the reasons f or h i s att orney’ s fai l u re to m ove t o excl u de w i t n esses fr o m th e co u r tr o o m o rth a t a n yw itn e s s e s w e r e a c tu a llyp r e s e n t d u r in gth e tr ia l;N o. 08- 70035

18 an d ( 6) t h e exi st en ce an d avai l abili t y of exculpator y or m i t i gati n g evi den ce not p r e s e n te da t t r ia l. In ad di t i on , the st ate hab eas courtrej ect ed B art ee’ s c l ai m t h at hi s c ou n sel
w as def i c i e ntfo rfail i ng t o re que s ta l i m i t i ng i ns t r uc t i o n dur i ng t he pun i s hm e nt ph ase, hol di n g B art ee w as not entitled to the i n st ructi on . I tal so r ej ect ed B art ee’ s c l ai m t h at hi s c ou n selw as def i ci en tf or fai l i n g t o objec t t o port i on s of t he St at e ’ s c l o s i ng ar gum e ntdu r i ng t he g ui l tpha s e a nd t o e vi de nc e o f t he vi c t i m ’ s good c har ac t e r , f i ndi ng t hat , i n t he a bs e nc e o f e vi de nc e e xp l ai ni ng c o uns e l ’ s fail ur e t o o bj e c t , t he r e c o r d was i ns uf f i c i e nt“t o ov e r c o m e t he s t r o ng p r e s u m p tio n t h a t c o u n s e l’ s p e r fo r m a n c e w a s re a s o n a b le ”. Ex Part e B art ee , N o. 97-C R

- 165 9- W 1, sli p op . at 11 (Tex. D i st
. 1 7 O ct ober 2 005 ) (u n pu bl i shed )

. I tal so
r ej ec t ed Bart ee ’ s c l ai m t hatt r i alc ounse lw a s def i c i entf orfai l i ng t o m ake an ope ni ng s t at em en t duri ng t he penal t y phas e, not i ng t hathi s c ounse lhad
r e que s t e d, b utt he t r i alc o ur tpr o hibi t ed, m ak i ng t he s t at e m e nt
. Fi nall y, t he st ate hab eas courtrej ect ed B art ee’ s c l ai m t h at t h e “ t ot al i t y of t h e representat i on dem ons t r at es t hatc ounse lw as i nef fec t ive” , not i ng t he e xp eri enc e o f hi s l ead
c o uns e la nd Bar t e e ’ s o w n i nc o ns i s t e ntst at e m e nt s abo utw hatha ppe ne d o n t he
n ig h t o f th e m u r d e r . I d. at12. T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed federalha be a s re li ef on B art ee’ s St r i c kland cl ai m , concl u di n g, un der A E D P A , t h at th e sta te ha beas court’ s r esol u t i on of B a r t e e ’s c la im w a s n o tu n r e a s o n a b le . I tfo u n dth e “p r o b le m w it h p e t it io n e r ’s
com pl ai n t s of

i n ef fect ive assi st an ce i n t h i s c au se [t o be] t h e factpetit i on er fai l ed t o present th e st ate h abea s court w i t h an y evi den ce, ot h er th an t h at c on t ai n ed i n t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s t r i ala nd a ppe l l at e r e c o r ds ” r e ga r di ng Bar t e e ’ s “ c o u n sel s’ strate gic a n d tactical d ecisi on -m a k in g”. B art ee , 5 7 4 F . S u p p . 2 da t 6 4 9
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ude d: “Abs e nts o m e s ho w i ng a c o uns e l ’ s s ubj e c t ivede c i s i o nm aki ng w as obj ec t ively unre a son a b l e, . . . i ti s al m os ti m pos sibl e f ora habe as c o r p u s p e t itio n e rto o v e r c o m e th e p r e s u m p tio n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s a ffo r d e dh isN o. 08- 70035

19 coun sel ’ s str ategi c an d tact i caldeci si on s un der St r i c kland”. Id

. U l t i m at e l y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ude d Bar t e e ha d “fail e d t o c ar r y hi s b ur de n o f pr o vi ng t he
a c tio n s o f

h is tr ia l co u n s e l .
. . fe ll o u ts id e th e w id e ra n g e o f o bje c tiv e ly
r e as o nab l e pr o fe s s i o nalco nduc t
. . . . [ o rt o pr o ve ] he w as ‘ pr ej udi c e d’w i t hi n t he
m e a n in gof St r i c kland”. I d. at 652
. A s a r esul t , i tconcl u de d t h at, un der A E D P A , t h e stat e h abea s cou rt ’ s r ej ect i on of B art ee’ s St r i c klandcl ai m w as not
a n u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f c le a r lye s ta b lis h e dla w . B art ee urges us to gran ta C O Aon thi s i ssu e b e ca u se the dis t ri ctcourt faul t ed hi m f

or not pre se nt i ng evi denc e w hi c h, ac c or di ng t o Bart ee , “w oul d have be e n r ej e c t e d a s n otfair l y pr e s e nt e d” if i tha d b e e n o f

fe r e d. To t he e xt e nthe contend s t h e di st ri ctcourtfault ed h i m forn otp resenti n g evi den ce he coul d n ot h ave of fered, he m i sapp rehen ds t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s opi n i on . Th e di st ri ctcourt di d n otrej ectB art ee’ s St r i c kland c l a i m b eca use he fai l ed t o a dvancean i m p erm i ssible cl a i m of i n effective assistan ce by h i s state-cou rt hab e asco u n s e l, as B art ee seem s t o sugg est
. A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ct court di d n ot e B art ee’ s not h aving exp l ai n ed h i s s ta te -courtha beas coun sel ’ s fai l u re t o of fer evi den ce es t abl i shi ng a St r i c kland c l ai m , i tdi d n otsugg estt h i s l ack of an ex p la n ati on i nf o r m e d it s de ni alo f

r e l i e f

. On t he c o nt r ar y, a s q uo t e d i nf ra , i tconcl u ded B art ee ha d fai l ed to carry hi s burd en of proof regard in g ei t h er prong of St r i c kland( def

i c i entper f

or m ance and pr ej udi c e) s u ch t hatt he s t at e habe as court’ s r ej ect i on of

hi s St r i c klandcl a i m w a s n ot u n rea son a b l e. T h e fail u re to
e xp l ai n t he s e de fect s di d n otm o t iva t e t he de ni alo f fe de r alha be as r e l i e f; t he de fe c t s t he m s e lve s di d. R a t h e rth a n e x p la in h o w ju r is t s o f r e a s o n w o u ldfi n dth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
c onc l usi on deb at abl e, B ar t ee r epe at s, es se nt i al l y ve rbat i m , t he fac t ual
con te n tion s m ad e t o t h e di st ri ctcourti n sup port of hi s St r i c klandc l a i m. He st i l lfai l s t o exp l ai n h ow an y of t h e cl ai m ed def i ci en ci es fel l ou t si de the ran ge of obj ect ivel y reasona bl e profes sio n a lcondu ct
. W e need not det erm i n e w h et h erN o. 08- 70035

20 B art ee ha s es t abli sh e d h is en t i t l em en tt o a C O Abased on t h ese def i ci en ci es, how eve r , be c ausehe m akes no m eani ngf ulat t em ptt o e xpl a i n h ow he w as prej u di ced by t h em . In t h e absen ce of som e evi den ce of

w h at prej u di ce B art ee s uf fe r e d f r o m t he cl ai m e d er r o r s , re as o nab l e m i nds co ul d notdi s ag r e e a bo utt he di st ri ctcourt ’ s r ej ect i on of reli ef on B art ee’ s St r i c klandcla im
. III. F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, B art ee’ s requ est s f or a rem an d a n d C O Aa re DE NI ED
.