## In the



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

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

N o. 09

- 3851 A LBE RT J. P R I CE , Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . M ICHAEL T HURMER, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 03- C- 849

—A aro n E . G oods tei n, Magis trate Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 17, 2010

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 18, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , an d W OO D, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h is h ab ea s c or p u s c as e is bef or e us f orthe seco nd ti m e, afterthe re m and fo r an e v i de nt i a r y h e a r i ngtha twe o r de r e d i n Pr i c e ’ s fi r s ta ppeal

. 51 4 F.3d 72 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. The o ri gi n ofthe case i s a bi zar re i nci dent ofm ayhem in 1 991. Pri ce was dri vi ng hi s t ruck and str uck a ped es tri an. H e co nti nued dr i v i ng, p ur s ue d b y a n o ff

- du t y p o l i c e o ffi c e r ; s l a mm ed i nt o the r e a r o fa no the r v e hi c l e , c a us i nga f o ur - c a r p i l e - up ;2 N o. 09

- 3851 l eapt o ut o fhi s t ruck, swingin g a m achete ; and i nj ured thre e pass er sby w i th i t be f or e he w as disa rm ed. H e was gr owli ng and r anti ng, and w hen the po lice tr i ed to su bdue hi m he e xh ibi te d e xt r ao r di na r y s tr en g tha nd im p er vio u sn es s t o p ain

— he r ea ct ed ne i th er to being pi nn e d b y a n a ut o mob i l e n o r t o b e i ngs ho c k ed by a stu n gu n. Con victed by a ju r y i n a W iscons in state cou rt ofat tem pt ed m urder and rel ate d cri m es ar i si ng fro m th e i nc i den t, he was s en te nc ed to 1 85 y ea r s i n pr i so n. H i s l aw yer had a ske d the j ury to fi nd him n ot gui l ty b y r e a s o n o fi ns a ni t y, b utthe j ur y h a d r e fus e d. Be f o r e appeal i ngh i s c o nv i c t i o n Pr i c e h a d ini t i a t e d a st at e po st co nv i ctio n pr o ce eding, c o nt en di nga m o ng othe r thi ngs that hi s t ri al law yer had be en i neffecti ve. A fteran e vi denti ar y hea ring the tr i alj ud ge had rej ecte d the c om pla i nt, as had the W i sco nsi n cour t o fap p eal s, Sta te v. P rice, 2002 W L 5 63 37 5 (W i s. A pp . A pr. 17, 20 02) ( per curi am ) , wh i ch h ear d his di re ct a nd post convi cti on appea ls s i m ult aneousl y b ecause hi s di re ct a pp ealhad been del aye d fo r six y ea rs by hi s publ i c defender’ s pro cr as tina ti o n. H av i nge xha us te d hi s st at e r emedi es , Pr i ce s o ug ht f ede r a l h a b e a s c o r pu s , b uts t r uc ko uti n the di str i ct cour t. Our pre vi ous o pini on a ffi rm ed t h e d eni alo fr el i ef on m osto f t h e g ro und s ur ged byhi m , but or dered an ev id e n tiary hearing on his com p lai nt s abou t his l aw yer’s w ai vi ng a he ar ing o n Pri ce’ s m entalco m petence to sta nd tr i aland f ai l i ng to pro vi de essenti ali nfo rm ati on to the c ourt
- appoint ed psychi atr i c witne ss. The di str i ct co ur t c o n d u c t e d th e h e a r i n g th a t we h a d d i r e c t e d , a nd ag ain d en ied relie f, pr ec ip ita tin g t h is s ec on d ap p ea l.N o. 09

- 3851 3 We b e g i n wi th P r i c e ’ s c o m pet e n c e t o s t a n d t r i a l

. He had a l ong hi sto ry of m ental dise ase and had been d iagnose d as a para noi d schi zoph reni c, and hi s be havi or du ring and i m m edi ate l y a fterthe att ack that led to hi s prosecuti on a nd co nvi cti on was co nsi ste nt with i ns an i ty
. Hi s o r i g i na l l awy er s ha d s ucc ee ded i n g et ting th e j udg e to a g r ee t o c o nduc t a com pet en cyhe ar i ng, b ut th ey w ithd rew from the ca s e a t P rice’s r eq ue st before th e h earing w as sch ed uled to take place

. H is new l aw yer, the o ne he’ s co m pla in ing about, havi ng be en appoi nted j us tmi n u t e s b e f o r e th e h e a r i n gwa s s c h e d u l e d t o b e g i n, as k ed f o r a nd was g r an te d a 2 4- ho ura d j ou rnm en t. The l awy ermet wi thPr i ce f o r thr ee a nd a h al fho ur s dur i ng the adj ournm ent, re vi ew ed w i th hi m th e c ourt
- or dered com p eten c y rep ort (prep ared by a Dr. Robe rt M il ler) , w hi ch had conclu d ed thatPri ce was co m petent to st and t r i al, a nd l at ert es ti fi ed th at“ th er e was n’ t an y do ubti n my mi nd tha t M r. P r i ce was c o m pet en t, a nd h e [P ric e] fe lt t h e s am e w ay .” The f act that a per son suffer s fro m a m entali l l ness d o e s n o tm e a n th a th e ’ s i n c o mpe t e n tt o s t a n d t r i a l

. He ne e d o nl y b e ab l e t o f o l l o w the p r o c e edi ng s a nd p r o v i de the info rm ati on that hi s l aw yern eed s in or der t o c ond uct an adequate defe nse, and t o parti ci pat e in c er ta in cr itic al d ec isio n s, su c h a s w h et h er t o a p p ea l. D r ope v. M issou ri, 420 U .S. 16 2, 17 1-7 2 (1 97 5); D usky v . U nited Sta tes , 36 2 U.S

. 40 2 ( 1960 ) ( per curi am ); Wo o ds v. M cBr i de, 430 F.3d 81 3, 81 7 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 05 ). I f h e is b ein g t re at e d su c c es sfu lly w ith an tip sy c h ot ic d ru gs , as in Wil son v. Ga etz , 60 8 F
. 3d 347, 34 9 ( 7th C ir. 20 10) , the f act that he has a m en ta l i l l ness ( ofwh i ch the drugs t re at4 N o. 09

- 3851

m er el y the sy m ptom s) does notr ende r h im i ncom pet e n tt o s t a n d t r i a l

. I ti s th e d i ffe r e n c e b e t we e n h av i ng as th m a an d hav i nga n a sthm at i c at ta ck, o r ha ving cor onar y a rt er y di sea se and hav in g a hea rtat tack

. W hen th e l awy ermet an d t al k ed to Pr i ce , Pr i ce g av e no s i g ns o fb eingi n a mani c st at e, a s he ha d b ee n during an d rig h t a fte r h is a ss au lts w i t h t h e m ac h et e. It’s u n like ly th atDr. M il l erwoul d ha ve c ha ng ed hi s m i nd abo ut P ric e’s co m p et en c e t o s ta n d tri a l h ad th e la w ye r c h all en g ed hi s o pi ni o n. A t the oralargum en t o f th e pre sen t ap p eal Price’s l aw yeri ngeni ousl y focuse d on hi s cl i ent’ s a l l eged i nabi l i tyt o r ec al l the de tails o fthe mache te a tt ac k

. The i ngenui ty l ay i n the f act that suc h a m n esi a would be consi ste nt with hi s be i ng l uci d du ring the tr i al, ye t m i ght m ake it im possibl e f orhi m to as si st hi s co unsel m eani ngfull y b ecause he ha d fo rg ott en the act s f or w hi ch he was be i ng pro secute d. T h e probl em with s uch a co ntentio n i s that the defendant w ho di dn ’ t want to b e t rie d righ t a w ay m igh t p l e a d am n es ia

— an d i f years l ate r he deci de d t h e tim e was now ri pe f ora tr i albec ause acq uittal had becom e m ore l ik e ly m ight an nou nc e he’d re gai ned his m em or y. There ar e t est s f ordetec ti ng f al se c l a i ms o fa mne s i a , b ut“ the r e i s st i l l

. . . no ‘ g o l d s t a nd a r d’ m ea su r e f o r di st i ng ui sh i ngb etwee n c as es of g en ui ne a nd feig n ed a m n es ia.” X u e Su n e t al., “D oe s F eig n in g A m n es ia I m pai r Subse quent Recal l ?, ” 3 7 M e m ory & Cogni t i on 81 ( 2009 ) . F alse pl eas o fam nesi a bycr i m i nal defendants ar e bo th co m m on a nd di ffi cul t t o detect

. M ar ko J el i ci c, Ha r a l d Me r c k e lb a c h & S a s k i a v a n Be r g e n, “ S y m ptomN o. 09

- 3851 5 V alid ity T es tin g of F eig n ed A m n es ia for a M oc k C rim e,” 19 Arc hi ve s of

Cl i ni ca l Ne urops yc hol ogy525 (2004). W e do not suggest t h at am nesi a ca n nevero perat e a s a defense to co m pet en ce t o s ta nd t r i al

. Buts o m ethi ng m or e than th e defendant’s word w oul d have t o be sh ow n , g ive nth e e as e o f m ak in g s u c h a c laim , th e d ifficul ty ofco untering i t, and hence the te m ptati on t o abuse i t. S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v . An dre ws , 46 9 F .3d 11 13, 11 18- 19 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); cf. U nited Sta tes v. No R un ner, 5 90 F. 3d 962, 96 5 a nd n. 2 ( 9th Ci r. 20 09); U nite d S t at e s v. Vi l l egas , 899 F.2d 1324, 1341 (2d Cir. 1990). Consi ste nt with our ske pti ci sm about a cl ai m o f am nesi a, Pri ce’ s l aw yer tes ti fi ed that he had concl ud ed on the b asis o fhi s m eet i ng with Pri ce t o disc uss co m petence to sta nd tr i althatPri ce “ w as ab le to hel p m e. ” Abil i ty to as sis t o n e’s law ye r is th e tes t o f co m p et en c e t o s ta n d tria l. W e m ov e on to the i ssue ofPri ce’ s m entalco nd i ti on d u rin g hi s bo ut o fvi ol ence. The i ssue has nar ro w ed to w h et h er th e b o u t w as a p sy c h ot ic e p iso d e a tt rib u ta b le to hi s par anoi d schi zophre ni a, o r w as caused by “a cute del i ri um ” a ttr ibutabl e t o voluntar y c onsum pti on o fal cohol or m i nd

- al ter i ng drugs. I f the l att er he w ou ld (w i th exception s n ot cl ai m ed to be appli cabl e t o thi s ca se) be i nel i gibl e t o be found n ot g u iltyby r eas on o fi nsani ty. St a te v. Kol i s ni t s ch e nko , 267 N
. W

. 2d 321, 324 (W is. 1978); see W i s. S tat
. § 939. 42. A nd thati s the o nl y v er dictPri ce see ks; he doe sn’ t deny havi ng m ounted the m achete att ack a nd tha t i t wa s a c r i mi na l a t t a c k un l e s s i t was caused byi nsani ty.6 N o. 09

- 3851 Thr ee medi ca l e xpe r ts testi fi ed atPr i ce ’ s tr i al : o ne chose n by the pr ose cuti on, wh o tes ti fi ed that the a tta ck had not be en t h e res ulto fm entali l l ness; o ne chos en by the de fe ns e , wh o t e s t i fi e d tha ti th a d b e e n; a nd the thi r d, Dr
. R o b e r t Dr o m, a p p o i n t e d b y th e t r i a l c o u r t t o be t he cour t’ s o w n expertwitnes s, wh o t es tifi ed that he had bee n u n abl e t o f or m an o pini on though he thought that Pri ce’ s s ym p to m s were m or e l i ke thos e o fsubst ancei nd uced acute del i ri um than ofm entali l l ness. Pri ce a rgues that hi s t ri all aw ye r provi ded i neffecti ve ass i sta nce byf ai l i ng to sho w D ro m c er tai n evi dence that mi g hth a v e p e r s ua de d h i m t o t e s t i fy tha tP r i c e had been i nsane duri ng hi s r am page. W i sco nsi n l aw per m i ts a j ury to rej ect an i nsani ty defe nse by a vo te ofte n to two. W i s. S tat
. § 971. 165( 2)

. Tw o j uror s v ote d t h at Pri ce was in sa n e, so h e w as on ly on e v ot e a w ay from a m ist ria l. Pri ce’ s l aw yerhad obt ai ned a n um bero fpol i ce r epor ts co nc erni ngthe t r affi c ac ci den t an d i ts v i o l en t afte r m ath, plus m edi cal re cor ds docum enti ng hi s cl i ent’ s hi st or y of m entali l l ness bef or e the at ta c k, p l us r epor ts by pri vate invest igators w ho h ad i nt erview ed fa m il y m em bers and fr i ends abo ut hi s be havi orbefor e the at tack

. M o stof the i nt er vi ew r epo r ts e l i ci te d o bs er va ti o ns mad e the m or ni ng o f, o r on the days bef or e, the att ack. Bu t s om e o fthe i nter vi ew ees repor ted that Pri ce had be en acting st ra ngel y form onths; i ftr ue thi s would bo l ste r the infe re nce that th e a tta ck w as the pr oduct ofm ental i l l ne ss r athe r tha n o fi nt o xi ca ti o n, w hich de ve l o ps an d cl ear s r api dly

. The l aw yer ga ve som e o fthi s m ate ri al to D r. D ro m bu t n otall

— not the re p or ts by the l ay ob-N o. 09

- 3851 7

ser ver s, o r the m edi cal re port s o fPri ce’ s hi sto ryo f m en t a l i l l ne s s , o r p o l i c e r e po r t s o fh i s c o nt i nu e d c ra zy behavi orafter the at tackwh en the pol i ce were tr yi ng to su bd ue him ( an d f or tw o or three d a y s afterw ard ), or a to x ic o l og y re p or t b as ed on blo od d ra w n from h im afterhis ar re st. A l though the bl oo d w as tes ted to o l ate to negat e the poss ibi l i ty that Pri ce’ s fi t had be en cause d b y d ru n ke n n es s o r b y s u d d e n ce ss at ion of d rin kin g, it did negat e the possibi l i ty that i t had b een caused bydrugs such as PC P, co caine , or am phetam i nes, wh i ch can a l so p recipitate suc h be ha vior. D rom had said in a l etter to t h e trial j ud ge th at Price’s vi ol ent ou tb urstwas “hi ghl y c onsi ste nt with a s ubstance i nduc ed psy ch o si s, ” th at“ [ Pr i ce ’ s] de sc r i pti o n o fthe ev en ts a nd pe r ce pti o ns of the t wo da y s pr ec eding[ th e at ta c k] a r e c on sis te n t w ith a[n ] ac u te p sy c h ot ic e p iso d e,” th at“ cl ar i tymightb e sh ed upo n thi s i ss ue ” i f“ ur i ne sam ple s [ had] b een t ake n f orf or ensi c purpose s, ” a nd that “i fr el i abl e witnesse s t o [ Pri ce’ s] behav i ori n the

. . . 48 hou rs [preced ing the attac ks] w e r e available w ho[] m i ght a tte st to hi s be havi or, thou gh t conte nt, m anner of spe ec h a nd/ o r po ss ibl e i ngestion o fs tr ee t dr ug s o n a vol untaryor invol untarybas i s s up portf orhi s cl ai m s o f m entaldefect m i ght b e ob tai ned. ” An d i n a c onfer ence wi thPr i ce’ s l awy erDr o m ha d s ai d, a cc o r di ngt o the l aw yer’s note s, thatthe l aw yer ’ s “ descri pti on o fev ents [ i n the w eek s pre cedi ng the at tack ] i s co nsi ste nt with an ‘ac u te p sy c h ot ic ep iso d e’ ” an d th at “ c o r ro b or at ion ,” i ff orth com i ng, would “sho w [ ] m entali l l ness, and [ that Pri ce was] pro babl y no t m ental l y r esp onsibl e f or[ hi s] ac ti o ns . ” The no te s al so s ta te tha t i n a ns w er to the8 N o. 09

- 3851 q u es tio n w h et h er P ric e w a s p sy c h ot ic, D ro m h ad sa id “Ye s, ” an d i n a ns wert o the fur th erque st i o n w ha t th e s o ur c e o fthe p sy c ho s i s wa s h a d s a i d “ 1 ) Dr ugi nd uc e d. 2) Resul t o fl ong- ter m al cohol i sm . 3) P os sib l y due t o p ar an oia .” The l aw ye r gav e Dro m an o ra l sum m ar y o fthe pri vate i n v e s t i g a t o r s ’ r e p o r t s , wh i c h mi g h th a v e s u p p l i e d the ful l er“ des cr i pti o n o f ev en ts ” th atDr o m was s ee k i ng . But Drom te sti fi ed at the t ri althath e w as u nw i l l i ng to o ffer an o pini on o n Pri ce’ s m entalco nd i ti on “ w i thout fi rs thand hear i ng o r seein g tr anscr i pti on o ftho se w i tne ss es . ” H e spe cul at ed th atPr i ce ’ s m an i c st at e m i g ht have been “acute del i ri um ” ca used by consum pti on o f alc oh ol or d ru gs , th ou gh h e d id n otex c lu d e t h e p os sib i l i t y th a t i t h a d b e e n a t t r ib u t a b l e t o me n t a l i l l n e s s . He re fused to o fferany opi ni on about P ric e’ s m entalst ate “t o a d eg re e o f m ed ica l ce rt ain ty .” A t the st ate post convi cti on hea ring, a n ew exp er t r etai ned by the defense, Dr. J ohn M ar shall, t esti fi ed that a psychi atr i c exper t witness w h o had not had ac cess to re port s o fthe “obs er vati ons ofpeopl e cl ose to [ Pri ce] j u st p rior to th is in c id en t ” w ou ld h av e b ee n “s ev er ely ha nd icap p ed ” in rend ering an opinion conc ernin g Price’s m en ta l c o ndi ti o n dur i ngthe a tt ac k

. Not i ngtha t ei g ht wi tn es se s ha d o bs er ve d Pr i ce ’ s det er i o rati o n o ve r the wee k s an d m o nths pr i o r t o hi s ex pl o si o n, M ar sh al l c o ncl ude d tha t it w as “n o t
. . . e ve n a c l o se c al l ” th atthe e xp los ion w as t h e “ re su lt of a m en ta l illn es s.” D r. D ro m d id not tes ti fy o r provi de an affi davi t in the postco n vic ti on pr o ce eding ; he ha d r et i r ed. The t r i alj udg e, no w pre si di ngN o. 09

- 3851 9

o ve r the po st co nv i ct i o n pr o ce eding, refu se d t o r ea ppo i nt hi m a s th e co ur t’ s ex per t an d Pr i ce di d no t su bpoena hi m to o btain his p re sence at the pos tco nvi cti on hea ring, as he co uld have d on e. Left unanswered

— and now , as w e’ll se e, u n an sw er ab le

— w as w hetherDrom ’ s o p i ni on (or rat h er lac k of o p i n ion ) ab ou t P ric e’s sa n ity w ou ld have been al ter ed had he se en the r epor ts ofthe obs er ver s. The W i sco nsi n cour t o fappeal s a nal yze d th e i ssue of i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce a s f o l l o ws: “ Pr i ce ha d no t dem o nst r at ed an y s i g ns o r s y m pto m s o fa ny s i g ni fi ca nt m entaldi sor der duri ng hi s s taywh i l e b ei ng ev al uated f orco m p et en cy. A l so, tr i alco unsel i nfo rm ed Dr. Drom ofthe pe rt i nent e yewitness acco unts o fPri ce’ s be havi or du ring the weekend bef or e the cr i m es. Dr. Drom in d ica te d attria l t h a t t h os e a c c ou n ts d id n otch an ge h is i nabi l i tyt o f o r m a n o pi ni o n s i nce he c o ul d no t det er m i ne th e cr edibi l i tyo fthe b eh av i o r al ob se r va ti o ns . Gi ving Dr. Drom the actualr ep or ts w oul d not hav e chang ed hi s t e s t i mon y b e c a us e he sti l l c o ul d n o ta s s e s s the c r e di b i lity of th e re p or te d ob se rv at ion s. Fin ally , th e c laim that tr i alco unsel s h oul d have pre sente d evi dence f ound in the pol i ce r epor ts du ring the N GI [ not gui l ty by r ea so n o fi ns an i ty ] pha se [ o fthe t r i al ] i g no r es the fact th at d uring the fir st p ortion of t h e trial, the j ury he ar d de sc r i pti o ns o fPr i ce ’ s co nduc t, s tate m en ts a nd behavi or . Pri ce’ s o w n expert[ Dr. M cDonal d] e xplai ned h ow th e obs er va tio n s of va riou s p eo p le pla ye d a role i n hi s de t e r mi na t i o n tha t Pr i c e wa s NGI

. Re pe t i ti on o f this evi dence w as not necess ar y. ” Statev. Price, sup ra , 20 0 2 W L 5 6 3 3 7 5 , a t * 5
. Th e o pi ni o n do e s no tm enti on D r. M a r s h all ’s testim ony or d iscus s w he th er a l aw yer’s10 N o. 09

- 3851 provi ding an exper t witne ss with a n or alsum m ar y o f re port s o ff act w i tness es i s a n adequate s ubsti tu te f or g i vingthe r epo rts to the e xpe r t to r ea d f o r hi m se l f

. The law yer testifi ed that his f ail ure t o r e s p ond to Drom ’s re quest forthe re port s was an e rr orr atherthan a pl oy. W e co n c lu d ed i n ourfi rs t o pini on that there was so m uchmi s s i ngfr o m t he s t a t e a pp e l l a t e c o ur t ’ s e v a l ua ti on o fthe const i tution al adequ acy ofPri ce’ s l aw yer that w e co uld notdeter m i ne the re aso nabl eness o fthat e v alu at ion w ith ou t a sk in g t h e d ist ric t c ou rtto ta ke ev id en ce on the m a t t er. So w e d irected the d istri ct cou rt to conduct an ev i denti ar y hea ring, expl ai ni ng ( w i th co pi o us c i ta ti o ns to the c as e l aw) tha t “whe n the m er i ts o fa pe ti ti o n f o r habe as c o r pus c anno t be determ i ned fr om the re cor d com pil ed i n th e sta te cour t, thr o ugh no f a ul t o f the pe t i t i o ne r ( c o mpa r e 2 8 U
. S

. C. § 2 254( e) ( 2) ) , the dis tr ict cour t i s a uthor i zed, and m ay b e d i r e c t e d b y the co ur to fa p p e a l s , t o c o n d u c ti t s o wn hea r i nga nd ma k e a pp r o pr i a t e fi nd i ng s , h e r e o n w hetherPri ce’ s defense w as prej ud i ced by th e m i sta kes com m i tte d by hi s l aw yerwith r ega rd to i nsani ty. ” 5 14 F. 3d at 733. W e had thought that w hen a peti ti oner w ho is se ek in g re lief u n d er se c tio n 22 54 (d )(1) (t h at is , w h en h e is charg i ng tha t the st ate co urt’ s deci si on was con tr ar y t o, or a n u nrea sonab l e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabl i shed fed er al la w as d et er m in ed by th e Su p re m e C ou rt, in th is c as e t h e d oc tr in e o f ine ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l) is unabl e to create a r ec o r d a dequa te f o r de te r m i ni ngthe m er i ts o fhi s c lai m , the di st r i ctc o ur t ca n h o l d a n e vi den

-N o. 09

- 3851 11 ti ar y hea ring to co m ple te the r eco rd. That was the si tuatio n a lleg ed b y P in h ols te r an d fo u n d b y th e N in th C irc u it in a d ec isio n r e c en tly rev er se d by th e Su p re m e C ou rtin C ullen v. P inh o lster, 2011 W L 12257 0 5 ( U .S . A p r. 4, 2011). Th e Co ur tr ul e d tha tw i th ex c e pt i o ns tha twe r e i na ppli cabl e t o Pi nhol ste r’ s ca se and ar e inappl i cabl e t o P ric e’s as w ell, a d ist ric t c ou rtm ay n otta ke ev id en c e in a habe as corp u s p ro ceedi ng tha t i s ba sed o n sec ti on 22 5 4 ( d) ( 1 ) : “ e v i de nc e i nt r o du c e d i n fe de r a l c o ur thas n o bear i ng o n § 2 254( d)( 1) r evi ew . I fa cl ai m has been adj ud i cate d o n the m er i ts by a sta te cour t, a fe d er al habeas peti ti onerm ust o ver com e the lim i tat i on o f §225 4( d)( 1) o n the re cor d that was be f or e that s tat e co ur t
. ” 2 0 1 1 W L 1 2 2 5 7 0 5 , a t * 1 0
. I n l i g ht o f tha tdeci si on w e s houl d not hav e o rder ed such a hear i ng i nsof aras Pri ce was s eek i ng r el i efunder s ecti on 2 254 (d )(1)

. ( Pri ce ar gues that hi s cl ai m o fi neffec tiv e assi sta nce o fco unsel w as n ’t a dj u d ica te d on th e m er its , bu t t h at is n otco rre c t.) A s f ora cl ai m under s ecti on 2 254( d)( 2), w hi ch pro vi des relief fro m a sta te cour t’ s deci si on that “ w as base d on anunr ea so nabl e d ete r m i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts i n l i g hto fthe ev i den ce pr es en te d i n the S ta te c o ur t pr o ce eding, ” th e sta tutor y l anguage appears to l eave l i ttl e o r no r oo m f or an ev i denti ar y hea rin g in the dist ri ct c ourt, bec ause evi de nc e p r e s e nt e d in s uc h a h e a r i ngwo ul d n o ta l t er “t h e e vid en c e p re se n te d in t h e s t at e p ro c ee d in g,” al though we cannotbe certain ofthi s be cause the r el ati on between subsect i ons ( e) and ( d)( 2) has neverbeen auth or itati vel y dete rm i ned. S ee Wo o d v . Allen , 13 0 S

. Ct. 84 1, 8 4 5 (2 01 0); Ric ev. Col l i ns , 546 U
. S. 333, 338-39 (2006 ); Wiggins v. Sm ith , 53 9 U.S

. 51 0, 52 8 ( 2003 ) ; M i l l e r - El v

.12 N o. 09

- 3851 C ockrel l , 53 7 U.S

. 32 2, 34 8 (2003)

. N o m att er ; ev en i fwe w er e r i ght t o or der a n evi denti ar y hea ring, Pr i ce c anno t pr ev ai l

. The e vi d en ce pr es en te d a t th e hear i ng f al l s s hor t o fdem onst ra ti ng a deni alo feffecti ve as sis ta n c e o f co u n se l. Thr ee wi tn es se s, a l l pr es en te d b y Pr i ce , t es ti fi ed atthe he aring: his trial l aw yer, an oth er l aw yer (an ex p ert on e ffecti ve re prese nt atio n i n i nsani ty case s) , and a psy

chol ogi st. Drom di d not t est i fy; he had died. The di str i ct cour t co ncl ud ed that Pri ce’ s r epres entat i on byhi s l aw yer a tt r i a l h a d i n d e e d f a l l e n b e l o w p r o fe s s i o n a l s t a n da r ds buttha t th e W i sconsin c o ur t ha d no t be enunr ea so nabl e in conc lu d ing that Pr i ce’ s defense had not be en p rej u d ice d by th e la w ye r’s p ra tfa ll. Prejud ice i s the only i ssu e w e nee d dis c u s s; th e state’s conte nti ons that the l aw yer ’ s withhol ding ofdocum ents f ro m D r. D rom was m er e “ i nadvert ence, ” which di d not i m pug n the a deq ua cyo fhi s r epr es en ta ti o n o fPr i ce , a nd th atPr i ce ’ s l awy erha d no duty t o t r y t o e li cit a hel pful opi n ion fr om Drom bec ause Drom was not a defense w i tness , ar e unpers uasi ve. Drom m ay not have re al i zed thatan e xpert w i tness i s al l o wed t o b as e th e o pi ni o n to whi chhe t es ti fi es o n a ny m ate ri al s o n w h i ch he would ba se a di agno si s o r othe r deter m i nati on i n hi s o rdi narypro fess i onalwork, wh ether ornotthe tes ti m ony w oul d be i nadm i ssibl e i fgi ven by a n on ex p er t w it n e s s . Fe d . R. E vid . 703 . “[A ]n ex p er t is n otlim ite d to rely in g on ad m i ss ible ev id en c e in f or m i ng his opi ni on. That would be a cri pp l i ng l i m i tatio n be c a u se ex p er ts d on ’t c h ar ac te ris tic ally ba se th eirN o. 09

- 3851 13

ex per t j udg m en ts o n l eg al l y a dm i ss ibl e ev i den ce ; the rul es of evi dence ar e no t intended fo r the guidance of expert s. Bi ol ogi sts do notstud y a ni m albehav i orby pla ci ng ani m al s under oath, and students ofte rr or i sm do not ar ri ve a t thei r ass ess m ents sol el y o r eve n pr i mar i l y b y s t ud y i ngthe r e c o r ds o fj ud i c i a l p r o c e e di ngs. ” Boim v. Hol y La nd Fou ndat i on f orRe l i e f & D e ve l opm e nt, 5 49 F
. 3d 68 5, 7 04 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 8) ( enb an c) ( ci ta ti o ns om i tte d). Li ke othe r physi ci ans, psychi atr i sts r el y o n sta tem ents and repor ts w i thout w or ry i ng ab out w hether they w oul d be a dm i ssibl e in a t ri al

. Pri ce’ s la w yer sh ou ld h av e p oi n t e d o u t t o D ro m th at ad m iss ibilit y is ani ss ue f o r the j udg e, no t f o r the e xpe rt w itness , a nd h av ing done so shoul d have s how n Drom the w i tness st a t e men t s , s o me do z e n i n nu mbe r, a nd p o i nt e d o uttha t they w er e co ns i ste nt i n thei r descri pti on o fPri ce’ s abno r m alb eh av i o r i n the da y s pr ece di ngthe a tt ac k, o fthe abse nce of i nd i cati ons of substa nce abuse du rin g t hat peri od , a n d o fhi s hav i ng be en act i ng st ra ngel y for m o nths

— hi s per sonal i ty had changed and he had se em ed parano id, ner vous, angr y, i ntense, and str ange. Drom thought the psychoti c epi sode substa nce- i nd uced because he und erst o o d i t to ha ve a ppea r ed o uto fno wher e an d cl ear ed ver y r api dly, and the re port s sugge ste d other w i se. I t i s tr ue tha t Pr i ce ha d b ee n dr i nk i ngo n the da y o fthe at ta ck

. The r e wer e empty bottl es i n h i s tr ucka nd he admi tt ed to o ne do ct o r tha t h e had b ee n dr i nk i ngi n the days b e f o r e the i nc i de nta nd h e t o l d the h o s pi t a l that he had bee n dri nki n g fo r w eek s a nd had a hi sto ryo f al coholwithdrawal

. But hi s l aw yerf ai l ed t o show D ro m14 N o. 09

- 3851 the pol i ce r epor t o fPric e’s conti nued cr azybehav i or (i n clud ing an attem p t to eat his d read locks) for 41 hou rs afterhi s a rr est

— long after the alcoh ol w ou ld h ave left hi s bloo dstre am

— a n d th e ab s e n c e o fty p i c a l s y mp t o ms of delir ium trem en s (acut e alcohol w ithd raw al)

. So m e o fthe w i tness es to Pri c e’s behavi ori n the days b efo re th e a tt ac k t es tifie d atth e t r ial, an d th eir tes ti m ony w as consi ste nt with the in ve stig ato r’ s r epor ts of w h at th ey h ad to ld h im , an d m or e d et aile d . Th er e is n o in d ica tio n th at D ro m at te n d e d a n y p ar t o f th e t ria l, how ev er , though he m ay have

— th e r ec o r d i s a bl an k on the questi on. But ther e i s no co ntenti on that ifDrom did notat tend, Pri ce’ s l aw yerw as cul pabl e; Drom was the c ourt ’ s witness, nothi s. A j ur y i s l i k ely t o thi nkthe c o ur t’ s e xpe r t wi tn es s th e m ostcr edibl e e x p ert witness i n the case . H ad Drom been convi nced that Pri ce ha d b ee n exhibi ti ng si gns o f psychosi s f ora si gni fi cant p er i od bef or e the at tack w i tho utc o ns umi nga l c o ho l i n e xc e s s o r ( o the r ) mi nd

al ter i ng drugs duri ng tha t p er i od, and had Drom bee n g i ve n the medi ca l r ec o r ds th ats ubs ta nt i at ed Price’ s l o ng hi sto ryo fpara noi d schizo p h re ni a a nd the toxi col ogy re port w hi ch nega ted se ver alposs ibl e e xplanat i ons, al ter nati ve to i nsani ty, f orthe att ack, he m i ght ha ve agr eed with Pr i ce’ s m edi calexper t t h at the a tta ck had be enc au se d b y i ns an i tyr athe r tha n by a bi ng e. The wi tn es s atthe e vi den ti ary he ar i ngtha t we o r der ed who w as an exper t o n effecti ve re prese ntati on t est i fi ed that

“ i ta p p e a r s a s th o ug h [ D r o m] w a s s e a r c h i n gf o r s o me cor ro bor ati ng i n for m ati on t o est abl i sh thatwh ate verN o. 09

- 3851 15 h e fo u n d to be a d efic ien c y in M r. P r ice ’s m en ta l co n d iti on a t the ti m e o fthe offense . . . wasn’t a co nsequence o f dr ugabus e. ” The do cum en ts tha t Pr i ce ’ s l awy eri ne xpl i cabl y f ai l ed to g i ve hi m c o nt aine d s uchi nf o r m at i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tma de t wo k e y fi nd i ng s o n pr ej ud i ce. The fi r st w as tha t “Dr

. Dr o m was c l ea r i n h i s te st i m o ny that he be l i eve d i t was necess ar y forhi m to be abl e t o ass ess the cre dibi l i ty ofthe w i tness [ es] i n or der t o pla ce a ny r el i ance o n the w i tness [ es] ’ r eco unti ng o f Pri ce’ s be havi or . There i s no evi dence to i nd i cate that ro l l i ng ba ck a la ye r ofhear sayby per m i tting Dr. Drom to review the ac tu al r ep orts ra t h e r th an hearing [ Price’s l aw yer ’ s] re counti ng o fthe conte nt o ftho se re port s wo ul d ha v e c ha ng e d Dr
. Dr o m’ s i nab i l i t y t o mak e a d eterm ination w ith th e requ isi te d egree of m ed ical certa i nty . The r epo r ts o fthe pr i va te i nv es ti g ators a nd o fthe po l i ce woul d s ti l l ha ve b ee n h ea rsay, and th us , i n the vi ew o fDr
. Dr o m , i ns uffi ci en t f o r hi s p urp oses . ” The se c ond ke y fi nd i ng was that“the to xi col ogyr epor t co uld not i nd i cate wh etherPri ce was un d er t h e infl uence o f al c oh ol at the t i m e o fthe i nci dent” and “would not ha v e a ffe c t e d D r . Dr o m’ s i nab i l i t y t o r e a c h a c o nc l usi on as to P ric e’s st at u s a t t h e t im e o f th e in c id en t.” N everthe l ess as an o ri gi nal m att erwe w oul d be i ncl i ned to rul e that Pr ice h ad been prej ud i ced by h is law yer ’ s l apses. But the W i sco nsi n cour t o fappeals di sa g r ee d; a nd a s ta te c o urt’ s det er m i na ti o n tha t a defen dant w as not prej ud i ced by hi s l aw yer’s i neffecti venes s i s en ti tl ed to gre atwei g hti n a fede r alhabe as c o r pus proce edi ng, as em phasi zed with r atherunexpected vi gor16 N o. 09

- 3851 by the S up re m e Cour t when i t sai d rec entl y that a st ate pri sone r can preva i l i n a federa l habeas cor pu s pro ceedi ng o nl y i f“there i s no p ossibi l i ty f ai rm i nd ed j ur i st s co ul d di sa g r ee tha t th e st at e cour t’ s dec i si o n c o nfl i cts w i th thi s Court ’ s pre cedents

. . . . [ Th e] pri sone r m u st sh ow th at th e sta te c ou rt ’s ru lin g on t h e cla im bei ng pre sente d i n federa l co urt w as so l acking i n j usti fi ca ti o n th atthe r e was a n e r r o r wel l unde r st o o d a nd com prehended i n exi sti ng l aw bey ond an y possibi l i ty f orf ai rm i nd ed dis agr eem ent. ” Ha rring to n v . Ric hter, 13 1 S. Ct

. 770, 786-87 (2011 ). I n l i ght o fthe Har r i ngt on de cision w e m u s t g ive short shri ft t o Pri ce’ s co m pla i nt thatthe W i sco nsi n cour t o f appeal s i gnor ed a g oo d deal o fthe evid en ce o n w hi ch hi s cl ai m f orr el i efwas base d, such as hi s e ar l y m edi cal r ec o r ds, the r epo r ts o ft r ea tingphysi cia ns , a nd the r epo r t o f th e to xi co l o g y t es t. Va g ue l an g ua g e i n the c ou rt ’s o p in ion m ay co ve r so m e o r ev en all of th is e vid en c e ; bu t of greater m om en t is th e Sup rem e C ou rt’s rul i ngi n Har r i ngt on th a te v e n a s t a t e c o u r t“ o pi ni o n” consi sti ng o fthe si ngl e word “a ffi rm ed” i s e nti tl ed to the full defer ence that the hab eas co rpus st atute d em an d s b e g ive n d et er m in at ion s b y s ta te co u rt s. Id. at7 84

- 85
. The S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ul i ngpr ec l ude s o ur i nfe rr i ng er ro r f ro m the W i sco nsi n cour t’ s f ai l ure to disc uss par ti cul arpi eces o fev i dence. N ordi d that c ourtapplyan incor re ct s tan d ar d fo r d ete rm i ni ng prej ud i ce, wh i ch w oul d be g ro und s f or re l i efunder s ecti on 2 25 4( d)( 1) ; se e Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or, 52 9 U. S

. 3 62 , 4 05

- 06 ( 2000 ). The co r r ec t st an dar d i s th attheN o. 09

- 3851 17 defe nd ant m ust dem onst ra te a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty th at ha d i t no t be enf o r hi s l awy er ’ s i ne ffec ti ve ne ss the ou tc om e a t t ria l w o u l d h av e b ee n d iffer en t. St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U .S. 66 8, 69 4 (1 98 4); Jo hn son v. Thu rm er, 62 4 F.3 d 78 6, 79 1 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); St ephe ns on v. Wi l s on , 61 9 F
. 3d 664, 67 1 (7t h Ci r. 20 10)

. The W i sco nsi n cour t r eci ted that sta nd ar d but l ate r i n i ts opi ni on m ud die d the w ate rs by sta ti ng tha t t o preva i l Pri ce ha d to s how thatpro per r epr es en ta ti o n “ woul d ha ve a l te r ed th e o ut co m e o fthe case , ” Statev. Price, sup ra , 2 00 2 W L 5 63 375, a t * 5, quo ting St at ev. Le ight on , 616 N
. W

. 2d 126, 139 ( W i s. A pp . 20 00)

— not woul d ha ve c r ea te d a r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tyofal te r i ngthe o ut co m e. Butthe r e i s m o r e to the quo ta ti o n: “A de fen dan t w h o all ege s a f ai l ure to i nvest i gat e o n the part ofhi s o r her c ou nselm ust a l l ege with s peci fi ci ty w hat the i nvesti gat i on would have r evea led and how i t would have al ter ed the outco m e o fthe case . ” Sta tev. Price, sup ra , 20 02 W L 563375, at* 5. W hetherthat ’ s righ t or wrong ( ri ght, if th e w or d “ p r o b ab ly” is u n d er st oo d be for e “ w ou ld ha v e a l t e r e d, ” b ut we ne e dn ’ t de c i de ) , i t do e s n’ t b e a r o n th e k eyde te r m i na ti o n i n th e cou r t’ s o pi ni o n r eg ar di ng p rej ud ice. T ha t is foun d i n a p assa ge w e qu oted earli er: “tr i alco unsel i nfo rm ed Dr. Drom o fthe pertinent e yew i tness acc ounts ofPri ce’ s be haviorduri ng the weeken d b efo re the cri m es. Dr. Drom i nd i cate d at t ri althat thos e a ccounts did not ch ange hi s inabi l i ty to f or m an opi ni on s i nce he coul d not dete rm i ne the c re dibi l i ty of th e b e h a v i or al ob se rv at ion s. Givi ng D r . D r om t heac t ual r epor t s woul d n othav ec hang ed his t e s t i m ony b e ca us ehe s t i l l c oul d n otas s e s s t he cre di b i l i ty of t herepor t e d ob s e r vat i ons .” Id. ( em p ha sis add ed ).18 N o. 09

- 3851 P ric e a rg u es th at th e W isc on s i n c ou rt ’s fin d in g (c u lm inati ng i n the i tal i ci zed p ass age j ust qu ote d) that he was not prej ud i ced by the i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fhi s co unsel w as base d on a deter m i nati on o ff acts that was unreas o nab l e i n l i g ht o f the e v i de nc e pr e s e nt e d t o the st ate cou rt

— the g ro und f orr el i efi n 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d)( 2) ; se e Wo o d v . Allen , sup ra , 13 0 S . C t. at84 9; Taylo rv. M addox, 36 6 F.3 d 99 2, 99 9-1 00 1 (9 th C ir. 20 04 ). Th e u n re a s o n a b le deter m i nati on a l l eg ed i s that the r epor ts that Dr. Drom di d no t r e c e i v e w o u l d n o t, h a d th e y b e e n g i v e n t o h i m, h av e p er su ad ed h im th at P ric e h ad be en m en t a l l y ill w hen he went on hi s r am p age. The questi on i s no t w hetherDrom wanted the r epor ts; he di d ; b ut, to r epeat once aga i n, the cour t dete rm i n ed t h at “gi vi ng Dr. Drom th e ac tu alr epo r ts would notha ve c ha ng ed hi s te st i m o ny be ca us e he stil l co ul d no t as se ss the c r edibi l i tyo fthe re p or te d ob se rv at ion s.” Dr om had tes ti fi ed that “w i thout fi rs t- hand hear i ng o r se eingt r an sc r i pti o n o f th o se wi tn es se s, Ido n’ t th i nk Icou ld d o it [that i s, o fferan o pini on o n i nsani ty] to a d eg re e o f m ed ica l ce rt ain ty
. If that te st im o n y is av ailabl e a nd con sidered to be from reaso na ble an d tru thf ul w itness es by the C o u rt, Ithi nkIwoul d ha ve t o l ea ve tha t to the Cou r t. Ic anno t m ak e th atstat ementde fi ni ti ve l y . ” The c rit ica l p as sa ge is th e o n e w e’v e it alic ize d . I t’s n oten tir ely cl earwh at D ro m m ea nt ( and w e s hal l neve r know fo r ce r ta i n) , b uti t se ems h e want ed th e j udg e to v al i dat e th e re l i abi l i ty ofthe w i tness es’ te sti m ony, wh i ch th e j ud ge coul d not hav e done. A furt he r exch an ge at th e trialrei nforc e s th is int erpr et at i o n:N o. 09

- 3851 19 Pros e cu t or : “Base d up on the i nfo rm ati on that y ou h ad , w ou ld you sa y th at t h e d efe n d an t is st ill res p on sibl e f orhi s a cti ons?” D r om : “W i thout m or e s pecific inf or m ati on fro m the s ourc es, Iwould have to saythat he’ s r esponsibl e, b ec au se h e’s n otp ro ve n ot h er w ise .” . .

. Judg et o pros e cu t or : “W h y d on ’t y ou as k h im si m plydoes the add itio n ali nfo rm ati on a l l ow you to com e t o som e o therco ncl usi on?” P rosec uto r ask s the questio n a nd D rom an sw ers : “Iam havi ng to r el y o n the ver tica l [ ver i dica l ?] tr uthful ness ofthati nfo rm ati on t o m ake such a st ate m ent. ” Pros e cu t or : “ Do y o u ha ve s o m e he si ta nc y i n r ely i ng up on the cr edibi l i ty ofthati nfo rm ati on based upon the c hai n that i t went thr ough?” D r om : “ Ithi nk

— I th in k t h at ’s a co u rtd ec isio n .” M aybe atthi s jun cture the j ud ge shoul d have r eces sed the t ri alto al l ow d efense counselto exp l ai n to Drom th at an ex p er t w itn e s s i s n otlim ite d to ba sin g h is t es tim ony on f acts ve ri fi ed by a j ud ge. Or m aybe defense cou ns els ho ul d ha ve e xpl aine d tha t to Dr o m b efo r e th e tr ial. B u t itw ou ld be sp ec u lat ion to co n c lu d e t h at h is insis te nc e o n j udi ci alv al i dat i o n o fwi tn es se s’ t es ti m o ny w as base d o n a m i sund er sta nd i ng ofthe rul es ofev i dence ra th er th an on h is ow n p ro f e s s i on al s ta n d ar d s, p os sib ly i dio syncr ati c. W e ca nnot s ay that i t was “unreas onabl e” f orthe W isconsi n cour t t o i nfe r f ro m the evi dence prese n te d to it th at D ro m w ou ld n oth av e c h an ge d h is t es tim o ny ha d he r e a d the r e po r t s , e s pe c i a l l y s i nc e the e ye-20 N o. 09

- 3851

w i tness es w er e a l l fri ends ofPri ce a nd so m igh t n ot see m c re d ible to D ro m . W e m igh t d isa gr ee w ith th e W i sc on sin cour t, but w e would no t have the s tr ength ofco nvi cti on that would e nabl e us to decl ar e its concl usi on unre ason able. T he eviden ce p resen ted at the ev iden t iary he aring in the district cou rt

— i fa s we g r e a t l y d o u b twe ar e per m i tte d to consi der a ny o fit

— w oul d not a l ter ou r c on c lu sio n, no ta b ly b ec au se o fD ro m ’s u n av ailability to tes ti fy a t that hea ring. W e no te fi nal l y that Pr i ce do es not ar g ue tha t th e co ur t’ s se l ec ti o n a nd ha n d lin g o fDrom as a cour t- appoint ed w i tness dep r i v e d P r i c e o fd u e p r o c e s s o fl a w. A FFI RMED .

4- 18- 11