2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-8-2005 

# H e nde rson v

. D iGu glielmo P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3256

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H e nde r s on v

. DiG u gl ie lmo " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 883. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/883NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 03- 3256

CL AR K HE NDE RS ON,

A ppel l ant v. * DAVI D Di GUGL I E L M O; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; T H E A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

(* S u b s titu te d p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 3 (c ), F e d . R . A p p . P .)

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 00- cv- 02437 ( H o n o r a b l e A n i t a B . B r o d y) Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 8, 2005 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R O T H a n d F U E N T E S , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed J ul y8, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTH ender s on w as convi ct ed fol l ow i ng t he s econd tr i al of the def endant s . T he fi r s tt r i al 1 e n d e d in th e g ra n tin g o f a d e f e n se m o tio n f

o r a m istria l. T h e p arti es c o n testw h ethe r P eti ti o n er a lso raised the issu es o f ju rytam p ering an d jury 2 m i s conducti n t he col l at er al s t at e pr ocee di ng. W e r etur n t o t hi s ques t i on i nfr a . 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . C l ar k H ender s on pet i t i ons forw r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2254 on t he bas i s of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el , j ur yt amper i ng, and j ur orm i s conduct . T he D i s t r i ctC our t , adopt i ng t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on, di s m i s s ed the p e t i t i o n . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I . BA CKGROUND Fol l ow i ng an al t er cat i on i n Sout h Phi l adel phi a thatl eftt w o m en dea d and another s er i ous l yi nj ur ed, Pet i t i onerw as t r i ed bef or e a j ur yi n t he Phi l adel phi a C ount yC our tof C o m m o n P lea s. O n A u g u st 1 7 , 1 9 9 3 , fo llo w in g a th re e -w e e k m u lti -d e f e n d a n t ju rytrial, 1 H e n d e rso n w a s c o n v icte d o f f irst-d e g re e m u rd e r, th ird -d e g re e m u rd e r, ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, cr i m i nal cons pi r acy , and pos s es s i on of an i ns t rum entof a c r i m e. H e w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i n pr i s on. T he Super i orC our tof Penns y l vani a af fi r m ed the convi ct i on and s ent ence on d ir e c t r e v ie w , C om m onw eal th v. Hender s on , 668 A . 2d 1191 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1995) , and t he s t at e Supr eme C our tdeni ed al l ocat ur , 6 7 5 A . 2 d 1 2 4 4 (P a. 19 9 6 ). O n A p ri l 17 , 1 9 9 7 , P eti ti o n er f il ed fo r co ll ateral stat e re li ef u n d er P en n sy lvan ia’s PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( PC R A ) , 42 Pa. C . S. § 9541 et s eq ., a lle g in g , in tera lia , i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance bas ed on tr i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l excul pat or yw i t nes s es . T he 23

PC R A cour thel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng and di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on on t he mer i t s . T he s ta te S u p e ri o r C o u rt a f

f ir m e d , C om m onw eal th v. Hender s on , 7 4 7 A . 2 d 4 1 2 (P a. S u p er. C t . Sept . 22, 1999) , and the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed al l ocat ur , 751 A . 2d 186 (P a. F eb . 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 ). O n M a y 6 , 2 0 0 0 , H e n d e r s o n f i l e d a t i m e l y pr o s e h a b e a s p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 . I n h i s i n i t i a l p e t i t i o n , He n d e r s o n a l l e g e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l . He c l a i me d h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l wa s i n e f f e c t i v e f o rf a i l u r e t o c a l l f

o u re x c u l p a t o r ywi t n e s s e s . By l eave of court , he fi l ed an a m ended pro se pet i t i on on J ul y10, 2000, al l egi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and deni al of due pr oces s due t o j ur yt amper i ng and j ur or m i s conduct . T he D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed couns el . O n N ovember 22, 2002, t he M agi s t r at e J udge gr ant ed l eave t o fi l e a c ouns el ed amendm entt o pet i t i oner ’ s amended pet i t i on. H ender s on fi l ed thi s amended pet i t i on on A pr i l 2, 2001, al l egi ng i neff ect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel for fai l ure t o call excu l pator yw i t nesses, and den i al of d ue p rocess a n d a f a ir trial d u e to ju rytam p e rin g a n d m isc o n d u c t. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr efe r r ed H ender s on’ s pet i t i on t o a M agi s t r at e J udge w ho i s s ued a R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n (“ R & R ” ) r e c o m m e n d in g d e n ia l o f H e n d e rs o n ’s p e titio n . T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the R & R i n i t s ent i r ety , and on J une 10, 2003, deni ed H ender s on’ s pet i t i on. W e gr ant ed a Cer t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i t yon t hr ee i s s ues : fi r s t , w hether H end ers on ’s at t orneyw as i neff ect i ve fo r fai l ure t o call fou r excul pator yw i t nesses;T h e A E D P A g o v e rn s § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e titio n s f ile d o n o r a f

te r A p ri l 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 . See 3 Li ndh v. Mur

phy, 5 2 1 U . S . 3 2 0 , 3 2 7 (19 9 7 ). 4 s econd, w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n al l ow i ng pet i t i onert o amend hi s pet i t i on fol l ow i ng expi r at i on of the A E D PA s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ; and thi r d, w hethert he D i s t r i ct C o u rtp rop erlyfo u n d that the s tat e c o u rtd ec isi o n reg ard ing the ju ry t a mp e r i n g / mi s c o n d u c tc l a i m w a s n e i t h e ru n r e a s o n a b l e n o rc o n t r a r yt o f e d e r a l l a w. 

### The Di s tri c t

Court ha d juri s di c t i on unde r

28 U. S. C. § 2254. Appe l l at e juri s di c t i on ari s e s unde r

28 U. S. C. § 1291 and 28 U. S. C. § 2253. O u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. M ars hal lv. Hendr i cks , 307 F. 3d 36, 50 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng D uncan v. Mor t on , 256 F. 3d 189, 196 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). I I . AE DP A S TA NDARD S 

### S ectio n2 2 5 4 allo w s f

ed eral co urts to g rant h ab eas co rp u s relief to a p riso n er “in c us t ody pur s uant t o the judgm e nt

of aSt at e c ourt ” whe r e hi s c us t ody vi ol at e s the C o n stitutio no f

th e U n itedS tates o f

A m erica. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (a). B ecau se Hend er son’s petition is gov er ned b y the Antit er

rori sm and E ff ec ti ve Death P enal ty

Act o f 1 9 9 6 (“A E D P A ”), P .L . 1 0 4 -1 3 2 , 1 1 0 S tat. 1 2 1 4 , h e is entitledto h ab eas relief o n ly 3 

### wh er e the st at e c ourt

proceedi ng s “ re sult ed in a dec is ion that was contrary to, or i nv olved an unr e a s onabl e appl i c at i on of, c l e ar l y e s t abl i s he d Fe de r a ll aw, ” or “ r e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i on that

wa s ba s e d on an unr e a s onabl e de t e rmi nat i on of the fa c t s i n l i ght of the evidence pre se nted in the Statecourt procee ding .”28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4(d)(1).5



### A s t at e c ourt

de c i s i on m ay

be “ c ontr ary

t o” c l e ar l y

e s t abl i s he d fe de r a ll aw i n one of two way s . Fi r s t , as t at e c ourt de c i s i on i s c ontr ary

t o c l e ar l y e s t abl i s he d pr e c e de nt whe r e “ the s t at e c ourt

appl i e s ar

ul e that c ontr a di c t s the gove rni ng l aw s e t forth i n [the Suprem e Court ’s ] cas es .” Willia m s v. T a ylo r, 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 (2 0 0 0 ). S eco n d , a state co urt d ecisio nw ill b e “co ntrary to ” th e S up rem e C o urt’s clearly estab lish edp reced ent “if th e s t at e c o urt

c o n f r o nt s as e t

o f f a c t s th at ar e mat e ri a l l y

i n d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f

r o m a deci si onof

[the Suprem e] Co urt andneverthele ss ar ri ves at a re sult diff er ent from

[the] prec edent. ” I

d. at 406. A s t at e c ourt

de c i s i on i nvol ve s an “ unr e a s onabl e appl i c at i on” of fe de r a ll aw, on the othe r

hand, whe r e i t

“ c orr e c t l y

i de nt i fi e s the gove rni ng l e ga lr ul e but applie s i t unrea sonably

to the fac ts of

a parti cular pri soner’ s c as e. ” I d. at 407- 08. Habeas re li ef willal so be grante d w here a s tatecourt dec is ion is “base d o n an unre as on abledete rmination o f the fact s. ” Und er the AED PA , how ever , fac tual dete rminations m ade by

the s tatecourt are ac corded a pres um ption o f correc tnes s: “a f ed eral co urt m

u st p resum e th at th e f

actu al f in d in g s o f

b o thstate trial an dap p ellate c ourt s ar e c orr e c t , apr e s um pt i on that c an onl y be ove r c om e on the ba s i s of c l e ar and conv inci ng evidence to the c on tr ar y .” Steven s v. D el. Co rrectio n a l Ctr., 295 F. 3d 361, 3 6 8 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (citin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1 )). T o p rev ail un d er th is “unreaso n ab le de t e rmi nat i on” pr ong, the r e for e , pe t i t i one r m us t de m ons tr at e by

c l e ar and c onvi nc i ng ev id en ce th at th e state co urt’s d eterm in atio no f th e f acts w as o b

j ectiv ely unreaso n ab le in l i ght of the e vi de nc e ava i l abl e . Me r e di s a gr e e m e nt wi th the s t at e c ourt

– or e ve n aH e n d e rso n ’s c o n v ictio n b e c a m e f in a l o n Ju ly1 7 , 1 9 9 6 , u p o n e x p ira tio n o f h is tim e to 4 s eek di r ectr evi ew i n t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tbyw r i tof cert i orari (9 0 d a y s ). Kapr alv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 166 F. 3d 565, 575 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . T he one- y ears t atut e of lim itatio n s b e g a n to ru n o n Ju ly1 8 , 1 9 9 6 , an d c o n tin u e d ru n n in g u n til p e tit io n e r f iled h is PC R A pet i t i on on A pr i l 17, 1997, atw hi ch t i m e 274 day s had el aps ed. T he s t atut e of lim itatio n s w a s th e n to lled u n til F e b ru a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 0 , d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f h is s tate c o lla te ra l a tta c k . See 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 2) . B etw een February10, 2000, and M ay6, 2 0 0 0 , w h e n p e titio n e r f ile d h is § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e titio n in f e d e ra l c o u rt , 8 6 d a y s e la p s e d . Pet i t i oner ’ s i ni t i al habea s pet i t i on, t her efor e, i s t i m el yunderA E D PA ’ s one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. 6 

### s ho wi ngof

e rr on e ou s fa c t fi nd i ngby thes t at e c ourt

– w i l lbei ns uf

fi c i e nt t o w arr ant

r e l i e f, p ro v id edth at th e state co urt actedreaso n ab ly . S ee L a m b ert v. B la ckw ell , 387 F. 3d 210, 2 3 5 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Ward v. Ster nes , 334 F.3d69 6, 70 3-04 (7th Cir. 20 03 ). I I I . TIM EL I N ESS T he part i es agr ee H ender s on’ s i ni t i al habea s pet i t i on w as t i m el yfi l ed under A E D PA ’ s one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . H ender s on’ s amended habea s pet i t i on, 4 how ever– i n w hi ch he f i r s tas s er t ed j ur yt amper i ng and j ur orm i s conductas gr ounds for r el i ef– w as fi l ed af

t ert he A E D PA s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed. A l t hough H en d erso n ’s am en d ed an d sec o n d am en d ed p eti ti o n s w ere fil ed w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s p e rm is s io n , th e g o v e rn m e n t a rg u e s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in g ra n tin g le a v e to a m e n d . B yal l ow i ng H ender s on t o amend hi s pet i t i on t o i ncl ude new cl ai m s aft ert he one- y ear l i m i t at i on per i od had ende d, t he governm entar gues , t he D i s t r i ctC our tenabl ed H ender s on t o c i r c u mv e n tt h e r e q u i r e me n t s o f AE DP A.7

U nderA E D PA , a one y earl i m i t at i ons per i od appl i es t o habea s pet i t i ons br ought b yp e rs o n s in c u s to d yp u rs u a n t to a n o rd e r o f a s ta te c o u rt . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ). A l t ho ug h l e a ve t o a mend “ s ha l l be fr e e l ygi ve n when j us t i c e s o r e qu i r e s , ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 5 (a ), a m e n d m e n t m a yn o t b e u s e d to e v a d e th e s tr ic tu re s o f A E D P A . U

ni t ed Stat es v. D uf f us , 1 7 4 F . 3 d 3 3 3 , 3 3 6 -37 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). I n D uf f us , t he pet i t i onerfi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forhabea s corpus i n w hi ch he r ai s ed th re e c la im s . Id . at335. Si x m ont hs l at er , fol l ow i ng t he expi r at i on of A E D PA ’ s one y ear lim itatio n s p e rio d , D u f

f u s s o u g h t to a m e n d h is o rig in a l h a b e a s p e tit io n b ya d d in g a f o u rth c la im . I d. W e hel d t hatal t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our t“coul d have pe r m i t t ed an a m endment t o cl ar i fya cl ai m i ni t i al l ym ade, ” D uffus ’ pr opos ed amendm entw oul d have a s s er t ed a

“ c o m p le te ly n e w ” c la im . I d. at337. B eca us e the cl ai m w as “compl et el ynew , ” i tdi d not “r el at e bac k” t o hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on underFed. R . C i v. P. 15( c) and thus coul d notbe d e e m e d tim e ly. I

d. H a d th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted lea v e to a m e n d , w e n o ted , “it w o u ld have f rus t r at ed the i nt entof C ongr es s t hatcl ai m s under28 U . S. C . § 2255 be adva nced w i t hi n one y earaft era j udgm entof convi ct i on becomes fi nal . ” I d. W e r etur ned t o t hi s i s s ue one y earl at eri n U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 221 F. 3d 430 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , w her e w e el abor at ed upon the i nt er s ect i on of A E D PA ’ s l i m i t at i ons per i od and “r el at i on back” underR ul e 15( c) . I n Thom as , pet i t i onerfi l ed a t i m el y§ 2255 pet i t i on. A ft erthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed, he s oughtl eave t o amend t he p e titio n to a lle g e f

a c ts in s u p p o rt o f

h is p re v io u s ly as s e rt e d c la im s . Id . at432. R el uct ant8

to “ e lim in a te o r c o m p ro m ise w h a t w ill lik e lyb e a p riso n e r’s o n lyo p p o rtu n ityto col l at er al l ychal l enge hi s s ent ence byr efus i ng t o even c ons i derw hethera pr opos ed amendm entr el at es back t o hi s orherpet i t i on, ” i d. at436, w e r emanded fort he D i s t r i ct C o u rtto co n side r w h ethe r T h o m as’ p eti ti o n related b ac k u n d er R u le 15 (c): R u le 1 5 (c )(2 ) a p p lies to § 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n s in so f a r a s a D istric t C o u rt m a y , in i t s di s cr et i on, per m i tan amendm entt o a pet i t i on t o pr ovi de fa ctual cl ar i fi cat i on orampl i fi cat i on aft ert he expi r at i on of the one- y earper i od of l i m i t at i ons , s o l ong as t he pet i t i on i t s el f w as t i m el yfi l ed and the pet i t i oner does nots eek t o add an e nt i r el ynew cl ai m ornew t heoryof r el i ef. I d. He n d e r s o n ’ s a me n d e d a n d s e c o n d a me n d e d p e t i t i o n s i n v o l v e “ c o mp l e t e l yn e w” cl ai m s . I n hi s i ni t i al pet i t i on he al l eged i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . I n hi s amended pet i t i ons , he adde d cl ai m s fordeni al of due pr oces s due t o j ur yt amper i ng and j ur or m i s conduct . T hes e cl ai m s ar e fa ctual l yand l egal l ydi s t i nctfr om H ender s on’ s or i gi nal cl ai m fori neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . U nderot herci r cumst ance s , w e w oul d r emand to th e D istric t C o u rt f

o r a f in d in g a s to w h e th e r n e w lya lleg e d f a c ts a n d c laim s “ re late b a c k ” u n d e r R u le 1 5 (c ). See Thom as , 2 2 1 F . 3 d at 43 6 -37 . B u t i t i s clea r fro m the re co rd th a t a c laim f

o r d e n ial o f

d u e p ro c e ss d u e to ju rytam p e rin g , o n th e o n e h a n d , an d a c laim fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el forfai l ur e t o cal l fourexcul pat or yw i t nes s es , on t heE v e n if H e n d e rso n w e re e n tit led to e q u itab le to lli n g , w e f in d n o m e rit to e ith e r o f h is 5 juryclaim s (j u rytam p ering an d juro r m isco n d u ct). O ne j ur orw as fol l ow ed byan uni dent i fi ed i ndi vi dual dur i ng t r i al . She w as ul t i m at el yappr oache d and advi s ed t o “make t he r i ghtdeci s i on for[her ] ow n good, ” an encount ers he l at erdi s cus s ed w i t h t w o co- j ur or s . T he courtexcus ed al l t hr ee j ur or s , and deni ed def

endant ’ s m ot i on fora mi s t r i al onl yaft erhavi ng i ndi vi dual l ycol l oqui ed ea ch re m a in in g ju ro r a n d a ss u rin g th e ir a b ili tyto b e f a ir a n d im p a rtial. A lth o u g h p riv a te comm uni cat i ons w i t h j ur or s ar e “pr es um pt i vel ypr ej udi ci al , ” R em m erv. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 4 7 U .S . 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 (1 9 5 4 ), t h is p re s u m p tio n is n o t c o n c lu s iv e . U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ega , 285 F. 3d 256, 266 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he courtdet er m i ned no j ur orbi as exi s t ed, not i ng t hatt he r emai ni ng j ur or s had no know l edge of anyi m pr opercomm uni cat i on. St at e courtfi ndi ngs of fa ctar e pr es um ed corr ect , 28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 1) , and H ender s on has noti nt r oduced cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t o t he contr ary . W e bel i eve the s t at e courteff ect ed a r eas onabl e appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw w hen, havi ng i nt er vi ew ed ea ch r emai ni ng j ur orand m a d e a f in d in g o f im p a rtiality , itd e n ied H e n d e rso n ’s m o tio n f o r a m istria l. H ender s on al s o al l eges depr i vat i on of a f ai rt r i al due t o j ur orm i s conduct , ar i s i ng f ro m a ju ro r’ s a lle g e d s o lic ita tio n o f a b ri b e f ro m o n e o f

H e n d e rs o n ’s c o -d e f

e n d a n ts . Fol l ow i ng t r i al , an ext ens i ve gr and j ur yi nves t i gat i on concl uded thatno j ur ym i s conduct had occ ur r ed. T he tr i al cour tt hen conduc t ed a pos t - ver di cthear i ng and deni ed H en d erso n ’s m o ti o n fo r a m istri al. T h e S u p erior C o u rt

– cre d it ing the tri al co u rt ’s credi bil i t ydeterm i nati on s– affirm ed it s denial of a m i stri al on j uryt am peri ng groun ds, r eas oni ng t hat“[t ] he evi dence pr es ent ed abunda nt l ys uppor t s t he court ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he i ns t antal l egat i on of j ur yt amper i ng i s m er i t l es s . ” The t r i al cour thad the bene fi tof the t ranscr i pt of t he g rand j uryi nv est i gati on and i t s fi rs t -hand o bservat i on s of t he w i t nesses’ demeanorand cr edi bi l i t y . Pet i t i onerhas notoffe r ed cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t o t he contr ary , t hus w e pr es um e the s t at e court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs corr ect . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd th e sta te c o u rt’s f

a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n th a t n o ju ro r m isc o n d u c t o c c u rre d to b e re a so n a b le a n d n o tc o n t r a r yt o a n yf e d e r a l l a w. 9 o ther, are u n related . T h u s n o rem an d is ne ce ssary . H en d erso n ’s du e p roc ess c lai m s are u n ti m elyu n d er Thom as and w i l l be di s m i s s ed. 5 I V. I NEFF ECTI VE ASS I S TANCE O F COUN S EL I n hi s t i m el y - fi l ed cl ai m , H ender s on al l eges hi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve for fai l i ng t o call fou r pot enti al l yexcu l pator yw i t nesses. H end ers on con t end s each o f t hese

### S ectio n2 2 5 4 p ro h ib its a f ed eral co urt f

ro m rev iew in g a h ab eas p etitio nun less all 6 

### st at e c ourt

re m edie s have been exhauste d. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4(b)(1)(A). Peti ti on er p resen tedth e f

actu al an dleg al sub stan ce o f h is in ef f ectiv en ess claim

to th e h ig h est avai la ble s tatecourt when h e petitioned the Penn sylvania Suprem e Court

fo r alloc atur rev iew . Commonwe alt

h v . He nde r

s on , 751 A.2d18 6 (Pa. 200 0). His st at e c ourt r e m e di e s , the r e for e , have be e n e xhaus t e d and hi s c l a i m s ar e pr ope r l y be for e thi s c ourt

on h ab eas rev iew . S

ee O ' S u lliva n v. B o erckel, 526 U. S. 838, 846- 48 ( 1999) ( hol di ng the exhausti onre qu ir em ent r equire s a peti ti on er

to have soug ht disc re ti on ar y re view wh er e av ailab le); Mc Candless v . Vaughn, 172 F. 3d 255, 261 ( 3d Ci r . 1999) ( c i t i ng An ders on v. H a rless, 45 9 U .S. 4, 6 (198 2)) ( ho lding that a peti ti on er

“m ust pre se nt a federa l c la im ’s f actu al an dleg al sub stan ce to th e state co urts ina m ann er th at p uts th em o nn o tice th at a fe de r a lc l a i m

i s be i ng a s s e rt e d” i n or de r t o have “ fa i r l y

pr e s e nt e d” ac l a i m

for the purposes of

the e xh austion require m ent) . 10 fourw i t nes s es w er e w i l l i ng and abl e t o t es t i fyt hatatt he t i m e of the cr i m e H ender s on w as a bl ock aw ayfr om t he gunfi ght , carr y i ng hi s daught erand t al ki ng t o fr i ends . H ender s on a lso a lleg e s th a t h e p ro v id e d h is a tto rn e yw ith th e n a m e s o f th e se f o u r w itn e ss e s w e ll b e f o re trial. T h is in e f

f e c tiv e n e ss c laim is p ro p e rlyb e f o re th is c o u rt. 6 

### T h e ap p licab le f

ed eral p reced ent f

o r in ef f ectiv e assistan ce claim s is th e w ells e tt l e d two- pr ong t e s t

e s t a bl i s he d by

the Supr e m e Court

i n Str i c k land v . W as hington, 466 U.S. 66 8 (19 84 ). Un der Str i c k land, i n or de r

t o m e ri t habe a s r e l i e f ba s e d on ac l a i m of ineffective as si st anceof

coun se l petitioner m

ust demon stratethat : ( 1) his att orney ’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

icient, an d(2 ) h e w as p rej u d icedb y th is d ef icien cy . Str i c k

land, 466 U.S. at 68 7. To dem on stratedefici ency , petitioner m ust e st abli sh that

coun se l’ s perform ance “fel l bel owan ob jective s tand ard o f reas on able ness .” I d. at 68 8. To ove r c om e the pr e s um

pt i on that c ouns e lwa s e ffe c t i ve , pe t i t i one r be ar s the bur de n of es ta blis hing that

coun se l’ s per fo rm ance was unreas on ableun der “prevai li ng prof es si on al11



### no rm s. ” I

d. at 6 8 8 ; s e eal

s o Bue hl v . Vaughn, 166 F. 3d 163, 169 ( 3d Ci r . 1999) ( c i t i ng Str i c k land, 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 9 ) (“Inev alu atin g co un sel’s p erf o rm an ce, w e are ‘h ig h ly deferenti al ’ and‘i ndulge a s tron g p re sum ption’ that , und er

the c ircum st ance s, coun se l’ s ch allen g edactio n s ‘mig h t b e co n sid eredso un d. . . strateg y .”). T o d em o n strate p rej u d ice, p etitio n er m

u st d em o n strate th at “co un sel’s erro rs w ere so serio u s as to deprive the defend ant of a fair t ri al , a tria l who sere sult

is re li able .” Str i c k

land, 466 U. S. at 687. Ul t i m at e l y , the “ be nc hm ark for judgi ng any

c l a i m of i ne ffe c t i ve ne s s m

us t be wh ether c ounsel ’s conduct s o und er mined the proper fun ctioning of the a dv er sari al proces s that the tria l c anno t be rel ie d o n as having p rodu ce d a ju st re sult .” I

d. H avi ng i dent i fi ed the r el evantfede r al s t andar d, w e nextas k w hethert he Super i or C our t ’ s deci s i on w as “contr aryt o” the Str i ckland sta n d a rd , inv o lv e d a n “ u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on” of Str i ckland , o r “ re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le det er m i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed. ” 28 U . S. C . 2254( d) ( 1) . T he PC R A C our tdet er m i ned couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o cal l t hes e w i t nes s es att r i al w as reas on able, and t he S up eri or C ou rtaffirm ed. T he S up eri or C ou rt ’s analy si s fol l ow s:

T he . . . fai l ur e t o cal l t he w i t nes s es i n ques t i on w as par tof a r eas onabl e tr i al s t r at egy , and thus m aynotbe the bas i s of an i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im . See [ C o m m o n w e a lth ] v . K im b a ll , 555 Pa. [299] , 312 [( 1999) ] ( r equi r i ng PC R A pet i t i onert o s how ‘ t hatcouns el had n o re a so n a b le s tra teg ic b a sis f o r h is o r h e r a c tio n o r in a c tio n ” ). W ith r es pectt o t hr ee of

t he fourw i t nes s es , C r ai g E l der , Sandr a R obi ns on, and M oni ca Rhodes, t he r ecor d s uppor t s t hi s concl us i on. A l l t hr ee w oul d have pl ace d [Pet i t i oner ] att he s cene of the cr i m e. H ow ever , t he r ecor d fr om [Pet i t i oner ’ s ] or i gi nal t r i al s how s t hatcouns el offe r ed evi dence t o t he ef fec t t hat[Pet i t i oner ] w as neveri dent i fi ed as havi ng been a tt he s cene of the12

m u rd e rs. It is c e rta in lya re a so n a b le tria l stra teg yto a ttem p t to sh o w th a t a c ri m in a l d e f

e n d a n t w a s n o t p re s e n t a t th e s c e n e o f th e c ri m e . O b v io u s ly, a defe ndantempl oy i ng s uch a s t r at egys houl d notpr es entanyw i t nes s es w ho m aybe abl e t o pl ace hi m att he s cene . Si nce tr i al couns el w as act i ng r eas onabl yi n fai l i ng t o cal l t he thr ee w i t nes s es i n ques t i on, he ca nnotbe found t o have be en i neff ect i ve. [P et i t i on er’ s] cl ai m al so fai l s w i t h respectt o the fou rth w i t ness, Ja m e s B ro o k s, b u t f

o r d if f e re n t re a so n s. T h e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t th is w itn ess w o u ld h av e p lace d [P eti ti o n er] at t h e sc en e o f th e c ri m e. H o w ev er, th e re is a lso n o in d ica tio n th a t h is te stim o n yw o u ld h a v e b e e n p a rticu lar ly helpful t o [P et i t i on er] . T he record do es not cl earl yshow t hat this w i t ness even kne w w ho [Pet i t i oner ] w as att he t i m e of the i nci dent . M or eover , t he w itn ess h ad d u ck ed b eh ind a w all w h en the s h o o ti n g b eg an , an d there fo re di d nots ee much of w hatt ook pl ace . W e fi nd t hat[Pet i t i oner ] has not p rov en that this w itn ess’ testi m o n yw as ‘n ec essa ryto av o id p rejud ice.’ H ol l and , 727 A . 2d at566- 67. T her efor e, w e fi nd thati tw as pr operfort he PC R A cour tt o di s m i s s [Pet i t i oner ’ s ] ar gum entt hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o cal l t he w i t nes s i n ques t i on. P C R A S u p er C t. O p inion (cit ati o n s to the rec o rd o m itted). T he Super i orC our tappl i ed C o m m o n w e a lth v . K im b a ll , 5 5 5 P a . 2 9 9 (1 9 9 9 ). B o th t hi s cour tand the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our thave he l d t hatt he i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance sta n d a rd se t f

o rth b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts is m a ter iallyid e n tica l to th a t ar ticu late d in Str i ckland . See W

er t s v. V aughn , 228 F. 3d 178, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( fi ndi ng t hatt he Penns y l vani a s t andar d i s “notcontr aryt o” the Str i ckland tes t); C om m onw eal th v. P i er ce , 515 Pa. 153, 161 ( 1987) ( hol di ng t hatPenns y l vani a’ s i neff ect i venes s s t andar d and the Str i ckland

t es t“cons t i tut e the s ame r ul e”) . G i ven thatt he Super i orC our tappl i ed the c o r r e c ts t a n d a r d , i t s o p i n i o n i s n o t“ c o n t r a r yt o ” f e d e r a l l a w. N ordoes t he Super i orC our t ’ s anal y s i s cons t i tut e an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of fede ral l aw . T his prong requi res us t o inquir e “w hethert he P enn sy l van i a cou rt s’13

appl i cat i on of Str i ckland to [ p e tit io n e r’s ] in e f

f e c tiv e n e ss c laim w a s o b jec tiv e ly un reas on able, i . e. , t he st at e cou rtdecis i on , evaluat ed o bject i velyand on t he m eri t s, resu lt ed in an o u tcom e tha t can n o t r ea so n ab le be justi fied u n d er Str i ckland . ” W e rts , 228 F. 3d at204. In th is case , the S u p erior C o u rt ’s an aly sis can b e jus ti fied u n d er Str i ckland . C ouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l a w i t nes s “i s pr eci s el yt he s or tof s t r at egi c tr i al deci s i on t hat Str i ckland

pr ot ect s fr om s econd- gues s i ng. ” Sanders v. Tri cke y , 8 7 5 F .2 d 2 0 5 , 2 1 2 (8 th C i r . 1989) . T he Super i orC our tconcl uded tr i al couns el decl i ned t o pl ace t hes e w i t nes s es on t he s t and bec aus e thei rt es t i m onyw oul d confl i ctw i t h defe ns e s t r at egy– t hati s , t hey w o u ld p lac e h im n e a r th e sc e n e o f th e c rim e , w h e re a s tria l co u n se l w a s a ttem p tin g to pr ove thatH ender s on w as noti n t he ar ea a tt he t i m e of the gunfi ght . W e fi nd t hi s fac tual d e ter m in a tio n c re d ib le, a n d p e tit io n e r h a s n o t p re se n ted c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e to t h e c o n t r a r y. C ouns el ’ s deci s i on nott o i nt r oduce t es t i m onypot ent i al l yi n confl i ctw i t h t he c e n tr a l d e f

e n s e s tr a te g yis n o t u n re a s o n a b le . S e e , e .g ., 

### LaFran k v . Row le y, 340 F. 3d 685 (8th Cir. 20 03 ) ( coun se l’ s a ll eged ineffecti veness fo r fai lureto ca lla witness was evaluate d und er Str i c k

land and, be c aus e i t

wa s a“ m att e r

of tri a ls tr at e gy , ” found t o be reaso n ab le); C

a stillo v. M

a tesa nz, 34 8 F .3d 1 , 15 (1st Cir . 200 3) (a ff ir ming d is tric t court’ s det er

mination that t

ri alcoun se l’ s fai lureto ca lltwo w it ness es wh ose propo se d t e s t i m ony m ay have c ontr a di c t e d de fe ndant ’ s own t e s ti m ony wa s “ as tr at e gi c de c i s i on14



### whi c h the c ourt

wi l lnot s e c ond gue s s , ” and wa s “ we l lwi thi n the wi de r ange of re as on ableprof

es si on alas si st ance ,”re as on ing that t he distri ct court’ s r uling w as “an app r op ri at e app l i c at i onof Str i c k land ’ s i ns i s t e nc e on the ‘ wi de l at i t ude c ouns e lm

us t have i n m aki ng t a c t i c a lde c i s i ons ’ ” ) ( quot i ng Str i c k land, 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 9 ); se e als o Phils on v. Barbo , 77 F ed. App x. 12 3, 12 7, 20 03 WL 22 31 69 30 (3d C ir . Oct .9, 200 3) (und er

“ unr e a s onabl e de t e rmi nat i on of the fa c t s ” pr ong of s e c t i on 2254, c ouns e l ’ s de c i s i on not t o c a l ltwo wi tne s s e s be c aus e of apot e nt i a lc onfl i c t i n t e s t i m ony

wa s “ tri a ls tr at e gy” t o be affo rded “appropriat e defere nce” and d id no t c on stit ute i neff ec ti ve as si st ance of

coun se l un der Str i c k

land ); U n ited Sta tes v. A rch er, 59 Fe d. Appx. 183, 185, 2003 W L 249089 ( 9th Ci r . Fe b. 4, 2003) ( on a ppe a lfr om

§ 2255 de ni a l , c ourt

appl i e d Stri c kl and’ s “ s tr ong p resum p tio n ” o f co m p eten ce to trial co un sel’s d ecisio nn o t to call a sp ecif ic w itn ess, ho lding that t

his s tr at egic deci si ondid n ot consti tuteunre as on ableprof es si on al perform ance un der Str i c k land ); U n ited Sta tes v. D ejesu s, 57 Fe d. Appx. 474, 478 2003 WL 19 37 36 (2ndCir. Jan.28 , 200 3) (tri alcoun se l’ s dec is ion n ot to ca lla c hara ct er wi tne s s wa s gr ounde d i n as tr at e gy of pr e ve nt i ng the pr os e c ut i on fr om att a c ki ng de fe ndant ’ s c har a c t e r

and the r e for e wa s “ i nhe r e nt l y t a c t i c a l , ” “ ge ne r a l l y

s houl d not

be dist urbed,” and was not fo un d to b e “ ob jectively unre as on able ” und er Str i c k land ). H en d erso n m ak es m u ch o f th e d ist inction b etw ee n “a t” t h e c ri m e sc en e a n d “n ea r” t he cr i m e s cene . H e cont ends t hatR hodes , R obi ns on, and El derw oul d have t es t i fi ed that he w as dow n t he s t r eetfr om t he gunfi ghtatt he t i m es s hot s w er e fi r ed, and w entt o t he15

c r i me s c e n e o n l ya f

t e rh i s b r o t h e rh a d b e e n wo u n d e d . P l a c i n g h i m “ n e a r ” t h e c r i me sc e n e , h e a rg u e s, w o u ld n o t h a v e c o n f licte d w ith a d e f

e n se stra teg yw h ich h ig h lig h ted h is abs ence fr om t he cr i m e s cene i t s el f. B ot h t he PC R A C our tand the Super i orC our tfound thi s ar gum entunper s uas i ve, not i ng t he i ncons i s t encybetw een de fens e t es t i m onypr es ent ed att r i al and the t es t i m ony offe r ed byt hes e thr ee w i t nes s es . T he t es t i m onypr es ent ed byt he def ens e s ugges t ed doubt as t o w hetherH end ers on w as pres ent att he scen e of the cri m e. H ad co un sel al so p re se n ted tes tim o n yp ro v in g H e n d e rso n w a s p re se n t at th e sc e n e – a lb e it n o t u n til i m m e d i a t e l y af

t erth e sh o o tin g – it co u ld h a v e re n d e re d th e d e f e n se stra teg yb o th con fusi ng and un persuasi ve. C ou nsel ’s cho i ce t o asser ton e t heo ryof inno cence i s a t act i cal deci s i on w e w i l l nots econd- gues s . W e fi nd t he s t at e court s ’ anal y s i s of tr i al c o u n se l’s d e c isio n n o t to c a ll th e se th re e w itn e ss e s to th e sta n d to b e a re a so n a b le appl i cat i on of Str i ckland , based u po n a reasonab l e determ i nati on of the fact s. W i t h r es pectt o t he fourt h w i t nes s , J ames Brooks , t he Super i orC our tfound no p re ju d ice ste m m in g f

ro m c o u n se l’s d e c isio n n o t to c a ll B ro o k s. W e a g re e . N o th in g in B r ooks ’ s t at ement pr oves ordi s pr oves anyel ement of H ender s on’ s defe ns e. B r ooks i d e n t i f i e d d e f e n d a n tP r i n c e Ha g wo o d , a n d s t a t e d t h a th e s a w Ha g wo o d f i r e a we a p o n . He s ta te d n o th in g w ith re s p e c t to H e n d e rs o n ’s p re s e n c e o r a b s e n c e a t th e c ri m e s c e n e . M or eover , he i ndi cat ed t o t he pol i ce thathe w as “ducki ng forcover ” dur i ng por t i ons of t he s hoot i ng, s ugges t i ng t hathe mi s s ed manyof the eve nt s w hi ch t ook pl ace .16

N ot hi ng i n B r ooks ’ s t at ement i ndi cat es t hathi s t es t i m onyw oul d have be en p arti cu larl yh elpf

u l t o H en d erso n . U n d er Str i ckland , pr ej udi ce “ r equi r es s how i ng t hat cou nsel ’s err ors w ere s o seri ou s as t o d epri ve the defen dan tof a f ai r tri al , a t ri al w ho se r es ul ti s r el i abl e. ” Str i ckland, 466 U . S. at687. T o s at i s fyt hi s t es t , i tm us tbe s how n t hat

“ th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, bu t f o r c o u n se l’s u n p ro f

e ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t. A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyis a p ro b a b ili ty s uffi ci entt o under m i ne conf i dence i n t he out come. ” I d. at694. W e agree w i t h the st at e cou rt s that coun sel ’s fai l ure t o call B rooks as a w i t ness does notunder m i ne conf i dence i n t he out come of t r i al , as t her e i s l i t t l e l i kel i hood t hat B ro o k s ’ v a g u e te s tim o n yw o u ld h a v e in f lu e n c e d th e o u tc o m e o f tr ia l. W i t h r es pectt o eac h of the fourw i t nes s es , t her efor e, w e ar e convi nced that couns el w as noti neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o cal l t hem t o t he s t and att r i al . A ccor di ngl y , t he Super i orC our tappl i ed Str i ckland r e a s o n a b l y , a n d we wi l l a f f i r m. V. CO NC L US I ON For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tdeny i ng H end ers on ’s peti t i on for w ri tof h abeas co rpus.