2009 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

9-14-2009 

# Lewi s v . H orn
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-9007

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin

. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L ewi s v . H orn" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 544. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/544P 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 os . 06- 9007 and 06- 9008

RE G I N A LD S. LEW I S, A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 9007

v. CO M M I S S I ONE R MART I N HORN, P enn sy l van i a D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s; C O N N O R B L A I N E , Super i nt endentof the St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atG r at er for d; J O SE PH P. M A Z U R K I E W I C Z , Super i nt endentof the St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atR ockvi ew
M ar t i n H orn, C onnorB l ai ne and J os eph P. M azurki ew i cz, A ppel l ant s , N o. 06- 9008

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

. N o. 00- cv- 00802) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B ruce W

. K auff m an2 A r gued A ugus t4, 2009 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: Sept ember14, 2009 )
M atth ew C

. L aw ry B i l l yH

. N ol as ( A r gued) D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia F e d e ra l C a p ital H a b e a s C o rp u s U n it T he C urt i s C enter , S uit e 54 5 W est Indepe nd ence S qu are W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A tto rn e y s fo r R eg in a ld

L e w is
J os hua S. G ol dw er t( A r gued) T hom as W

. D ol genos R o n ald E isen b erg A r nol d H

. G or don L ynne A br aham O ffi ce of t he D i s t r i ctA t t orney T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107- 3499 A t t or neys f

orMar t i n H

or n, C onnorB l ai ne and Jos eph P. Maz urki ew i cz

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

.3 I n t hi s appea l , w e ar e pr es ent ed w i t h t he di ffi cul tt as k of c o n sid e rin g a P e n n sy lv a n ia d e a th ro w in m a te’ s c h a llen g e s to h is convi c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e , s t e mmi n g f r o m a t r i a l t h a to c c u r r ed overt w enty - fi ve y ears ag o . A ppel l antR egi nal d L ew i s fi l ed a pet i t i on for a w r i t of habea s corpus i n t he D i s t r i ct C our ts eeki ng r el i ef from h is j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ctC ourtdeni ed Lew i s r el i ef f r om hi s convi ct i on, r ej ect i ng h is argu m en ts th at th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s us e o f p ere m p tory s t r i kes vi ol at ed B at

s on v. Kentucky , 4 7 6 U .S . 7 9 (1 9 8 6 ), th a t h is couns el w as i neff

ect i ve dur i ng t he gui l tphas e of hi s t r i al , and th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth su p p re ss e d e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e in v i o l a t i o n of B rady v. Mar yland , 373 U

. S. 83 ( 1963)

. B utthe D istric t C o u rt w a s p e rsu a d e d b yL e w is ’ s a rg u m e n ts th a t h is couns el rende r ed cons t i tut i onal l yi neff ect i ve as s i s t ance att he p e n a ltyp h a se o f

h is tria l an d th e re f

o re g ra n ted re lief

to L e w is fr om hi s death s ent ence . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ct Co u r t c o mm i t t e d s e v e r a l e r r o r s i n i t s a n a l y s i s o f th i s c l a i m, we w i l l vaca t e i t s or dergr ant i ng s ent enci ng r el i ef, and r emand for fu rth er pro ce ed ing s co n sist en t w ith this op inion

. W e w il l aff irm t he D i stri ctC ou rti n all otherres pects

. I.
A tappr oxi m at el y6: 30 p . m . on N ovember21, 1982, C hr i stop h er E l l i s w as brut al l ys t abbed ni ne t i m es bya man w iel d ing a b u tche r kn ife in th e O x fo rd B ar, l o ca ted o n O x fo rd an d S i xt h St r eet s i n Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a. T he s t abbi ng w as obs erved byall o f the patr ons of the bar , i ncl udi ng t he gr oup t hatacc om pani ed E l l i s t o t he bart o cel ebr at e the bi r t hday of one o f the mem ber s . Fol l ow i ng the i nci dent , the pol i ce sh owed e a c h o f the w i t ne s s e s a ph ot o- a r r a yof e i gh tpi c tur es,4 o n e o f w h ich d e p icte d L e w is, a n d e a c h w itn e ss id e n tifie d L e w is as t he per s on w ho comm i t t ed the murde r . Subse quent l y , w hen t he pol i ce arr es t ed L ew i s for s hopl i ft i ng fr o m a d epar t m ent sto re , h e h a d a ss u m e d th e n a m e o f B o o k e r T . B e a tty , Jr. W h ile s t i l l i n p o l i c e c u s t o d yo n t h a tc h a r g e , Le wi s was a rr e s t ed pur s uantt o an out s t andi ng w arr ant and char ged w i t h t he murde r of C hri st op her E l l i s.

A . T ri al and D i rec t A ppeal
O vert he cour s e of t he t r i al i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas o f P h ilad e lp h ia C o u n ty , the p ro se c u tio n p ro d u c e d six ey e- w i t nes ses w h o i dent i fi ed Lew i s as the i ndi vi dual theyhad se e n c o m m it th e m u rd e r. E a c h w itn e ss h a d b e e n f a m ili a r w ith L ew i s as a per s on w ho “hung ar ound” t he nei ghborhood. T hey al l knew hi m b y h is f

i r s tname onl y , “R eggi e” orR egi nal d. T her e w as al s o t es t i m onyt hatfr equent l yL ew i s w as s een w e a rin g c lea r le n s, “ sc h o o lb o y ” g las se s p rio r to th e in c id e n t, s i m i l art o t he gl as s es dr opped byt he as s ai l antatt he s cene of the m ur der

. O ne w it n ess t es t i fi ed thati m m edi at el ypr i ort o the s t abbi ng Le wi s a n d El l i s wer e a r g u i n g o v e ra f i v e d o l l a rd ebt E l l is a ll egedl yow ed Lew i s . T he bart endert es t i fi ed thatthe as s ai l antw as a pr evi ous cus t om er at t he barand had a gi r l fr i end named St ephani e, w ho w as pr egnant at t he t i m e and l i ved on t he 1600 bl ock of M ar s hal l St r eeti n Phi l adel phi a. T he C o m m o n w e a lth p r o d u c e d L e w i s ’ s f i a n c é e , S t e p h a n i e M c C o r e y, w h o tes t i fi ed s he w as pr egnantatt he t i m e of the i nci dentand had pr evi ous l yr es i ded at1610 N

. M ar s hal l St r eet

. T he bar t enderal s o t es t i fi ed thatL ew i s appr oache d hi m the nextday and t ol d hi m notto ment i on L ew i s ’ s name w i t h r egar d t o the i nci dent

. I n defe ns e, L ew i s m ai nt ai ned he w as i n San D i egoI n a Penns y l vani a j ury tr i al , aft era fi r s t

- degr ee mur der 1
v erd ict“is reco rde d an d b ef o re th e j u ry is d isch arg ed , the c o u rt sh all co n d u ct a se p ara te sen tenc ing h ea ri n g in w h ich th e jury sh a ll d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t sh a ll b e se n ten c e d to death orl i fe i m pri s onm ent

. ” 42 Pa. C ons . St at

. A nn. § 9 7 1 1 (a)(1). 5 v isi ti n g h is bro ther, M icha el, at th e ti m e o f the in cide n t. In su p p o rt o f th is c laim e d a lib i d e f e n se , L e w is p ro d u c e d h is b r o t h e ra n d o t h e rf

a m i l y m e m b e r s t o c o r r o b o r a t e th e s t o r y. O n A u g u st 1 , 1 9 8 3 , th e ju ryf o u n d L e w is g u iltyo f

firstdegr ee m u r derand pos s es s i on of an i ns t rum entof cr i m e. D u rin g th e p e n a ltyp h a se , th e C o m m o n w e a lth so u g h t to 1 estab li sh the ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce o f “ a sig n ifi ca n t hist o ry o f f e lo n yc o n v ictio n s in v o lv in g th e u se o r th re a t o f v io len c e to t he per s on, ” s ee 42 Pa. C ons . St at

. A nn. § 9711( d) ( 9) , offe r i ng e v id e n c e o f

L e w is’s 1 9 7 3 a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt co n v ictio n in Phi l adel phi a, and hi s 1976 fi r s t

- deg ree m ur derand fe l ony assa u ltco n v ict ion s in C am d en , N ew Jerse y . L ew is in turn t es t i fi ed i n an at t empt t o dow npl ay hi s cul pabi l i t y and mi ni m i ze t he vi ol ence of hi s pr i or convi ct i ons , and hi s couns el , i n cl os i ng ar gu me n t , e mph a s i z e d Le wi s ’ s y o u t h a tt h e t i me o f t h e p r i or o ff en ses. A fter ap p rox im atelyo n e h o u r of d eli b era ti o n , the ju ry r etur ned i t s ver di ct , fi ndi ng o n e aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance and no m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s , and sent enci ng L ew i s t o death on t he fi r s t

- degr ee mur derconvi ct i on.
L ew i s , r epr es ent ed bynew couns el , fi l ed a di r ectappea l t o t he Penns y l vani a S u p r eme C our t , w hi ch, on D ece m ber22,6 1989, aff

i r m ed hi s j udgm ent of convi ct i on and s ent ence . C o m m o n w e a lth v . L e w is , 5 6 7 A

. 2 d 1 3 7 6 (P a. 19 8 9 ) (L ew is I ). In hi s di rectapp eal , L e w is r ai sed a nu m ber of argum ents , inclu d ing a c h all en ge t o the C om m o n w ea lth ’s us e o f p ere m p tory strik e s d u rin g ju ryse lec tio n . A lth o u g h L e w is d id n o t cite B at s on v. Kent ucky , 476 U

. S. 79 ( 1986) , w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeci ded dur ing the pendencyof Lew i s ’ s di r ect appea l , he i ncl uded a s hor tar gum ent in hi s br i ef unde rt he headi ng “D efe ndantW as D eni ed H i s C ons t i tut i onal R i ghtT o A Fai rT r i al B yA J ur yO f H i s Peer s B yT he I m pr operU s e of Per empt or yC hal l enges B yT he C om m onw eal t h, ” w hi ch s t at ed t he fol l ow i ng: “A ppel l antw i s hes t o pr es erve thi s ar gum entand al l eges the C o m m o n w ea lt h unfai r l yand im p ro p e rlyu se d its p e re m p to ryc h a llen g e s to excl ude mem ber s of A ppel l ant ’ s r ace ( B l ack) fr om t he j u ry . C ouns el r eques t s thi s i s s ue be r emanded for an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o det erm i ne th e v a lid ity o f

th e a s s e rt io n .” (A pp . at18 91

. ) I n reject i ng L ew i s’ s B at s on cl ai m , the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tnot ed Lew i s ’ s “fa i l ur e t o i dent i fy s peci fi c veni r emen ors peci fi c part s of the re cor d i n s uppor tof hi s al l egat i on, ” and r eas oned that“abs enta pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng of i m p r o p e r u s e of per empt or ychal l enges byt he C o m m o n w e a lth , this c laim c o u ld n o t p ro v id e a b a si s . . . to vaca t e the j udgm entof s ent ence . ” L ew is I, 567 A

. 2d at1381 n. 3. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme Court r ej ect ed t he r emai nderof L ew i s ’ s ar gum ent s , n o n e o f w hi ch i s r el evantt o t he curr ent a p p e a l.L e w is’s P C R A p e ti tio n w a s tim e lyb e c a u se h e f iled it 2 b ef o re a n am en d m en t t o the P C R A w en t i n to ef fe ct i n Jan u ary 1 9 9 6 , w h ich c re a ted a o n e -y e a r f ili n g d e a d lin e f

ro m th e d a te ju d g m e n t b e c o m e s f

in a l. See 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat

. A n n . § 9 5 4 5 (b); see al so B ronshtei n v. H

orn , 404 F. 3d 700, 708 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (dis cussi ng w hen t he o ne-y ear fi l i ng dead l i ne b ecam e a fi rm ly estab li sh ed an d reg u larl yfo ll o w ed rule). 7 B . St at e Post
- C onvi ct i on P roce edi ngs O n A ugus t7, 1 9 9 5 , al m os ts i x y ear s aft ert he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our taff i r m ed Lew i s ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence on di r ect appea l , L ew i s fi l ed a t i m el y pr o se p eti t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef unde rPenns y l vani a’ s PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct ( PC R A ) , 42 Pa. C ons . St at

. A nn. § 9541 et s eq. In 2 t hi s pet i t i on, L ew i s ar gued thathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve att he g u iltp h a se o f

h is tria l f

o r f a ili n g to o b

jec t d u rin g v o ir d ire to w hathe al l eged w as t he C om m onw eal t h’ s di s cr i m i nat ory us e of per empt or ys t r i kes

. A ddi t i onal l y , L ew i s ar gued thathi s couns el w as inef fe cti ve att he pena l t yphas e of hi s tr i al forconduct i ng “no i nves t i gat i on gear ed t ow ar d the pena l t yhear i ng” and f or p r e s e n t i n g “ n o i n f

o r ma t i o n r e g a r d i n g [ h i s ] me n t a l i l l n e s s . ” On N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 5 , co u n se l w a s ap p o in ted to re p re se n t L e w is in his P C R A p roc ee d ing , an d o n A p ri l 1 0 , 1 9 9 6 , L e w is’ s c o u n s e l f

i l e d a n a m e n d e d P C R A p e t i t i o n , f o l l o w e d b y a s up p lem ent al amended pet i t i on and mem or andum of l aw fi l ed on J une 18, 1996. O n J anuary15, 1997, the PC R A courti s s ued a t en- daynot i ce of

di s m i s s al of Lew i s ’ s pet i t i on. I n r es pons e, L ew i s ’ s curr ent co u n s el , w ho had as s um ed r epr es ent at i on of h im , fil ed o b

jecti o n s to the p ro p o sed d ism issal. In L ew is’ s8 o b jec tio n s to th e n o tice o f d ism iss a l, he e x p a n d e d o n h is c laim of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el att he pena l t yphas e, and he al s o argued thatt he C om m onw eal t h vi ol at ed B r ady v. Mar yland , 3 7 3 U

. S

. 8 3 (19 6 3 ), b y n o t p rov idin g e x cu lpato ry evi dence of ce r t ai n bus t i cket s al l egedl yl ocat ed i n a br i efc as e he w a s c a rry in g a t th e tim e o f h is a rre st.
O n February7, 1997, t he PC R A courtdeni ed Lew i s ’s pet i t i on w i t houtconduct i ng a hea r i ng. L ew i s appea l ed t o t he Penns y l vani a S upr eme C our t , el abor at i ng on t he ar gum ent s he ra ise d b e f

o re th e P C R A c o u rt a n d a lso a d d in g to h is a rg u m e n ts a cl ai m t hathi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve at t he gui l tphas e of hi s t r i al for fai l i ng t o adequa t el y pr epar e al i bi w i t nes s es and for fai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e a defe ns e of s el f defens e. O n J anuary19, 2000, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our taff i r m ed t h e d en i al of L ew i s ’ s pet i t i on, hol di ng: ( 1) t he B at s on c laim w a s p re v io u sly l i t i gat ed on di r ect appea l and coul d notbe r econs i der ed; ( 2) t he i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of coun sel at the gui l tphas e cl ai m w as w ai ved bec aus e i tw as r ai s ed for the fi r s tt i m e on appe al fr om t he PC R A cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of Lew i s ’ s pet i t i on; ( 3) t he B r ady cl ai m fai l ed bec aus e th e b u s t i cketdi d nots uppor tan al i bi defe ns e as t her e w as no i ndi cat i on of a da t e o f t r avel and the br i efc as e con ta i ni ng the t i cketw as noti n t he cus t odyof the pol i ce; and ( 4) t he i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of co u n sel att he p en altyp h ase claim fa ile d b e ca u se th e re co rd d id n o t sup p o rt L ew i s ’ s cont ent i on t hathe s uffe r s fr om br ai n damage ors er i ous m e n ta l illn e s s . C o m m o n w e a lth v . L e w is , 743 A

. 2d 907 ( Pa. 2 0 0 0 ) (L ew is I

I )

. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed s ever al ot her ar gum ent s r ai s ed by L ew i s , none of w hi ch are re lev a n t to th e in sta n t ap p e a l.W e l i m i tourdi s cu s s i on of the cl ai m s r eac hed byt he 3 D istric t C o u rt to th o se w h ich a re re lev a n t to th e in sta n t ap p e a l. 9 C . F ederalH abeas P roce edi ngs
I n Septem ber2000, L ew i s fi l ed the pr es entpet i t i on for a wr i t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D istr i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia a lleg in g six tee n se p a ra te g ro u n d s f o r re li e f , o n ly s om e of w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tr eac hed. L ew is v. H orn , 2006 3 W L 2 3 3 8 4 0 9 (E

. D

. P a. A u g . 9 , 2 0 0 6 ). In re v iew ing L ew is’ s B at s on claim , the D istri ct C o u rtap p li ed the d ef ere n ti al st an d ard setforth in § 22 54 (d) and con cl ud ed that“t he P enn sy lv a n ia Supr em e C ourtr eas onabl yappl i ed B at s on i n det erm i ni ng t hat [L ew is] fa il ed to m ak e a p ri m a f ac ie claim o f d iscri m inato ry j ur y sel ect i on. ” I

d. at*13. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o r ej ect ed L ew i s ’ s ar gum entt hathi s appel l at e couns el w as i neff ect i ve for fai l ing t o r ai s e the B at

s on c laim in a p ro f

e ss io n a llyre a so n a b le m ann e ron di r e c ta pp e a l , c on c l ud i ng t ha t“ [b ] e c a us e [Lew i s] ca n n o t est ab li sh a p ri m a f a c ie ca se u n d er B at

s on , hi s cl ai m of in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l f

o r f a ilu re to ra ise th is c la im m us tal s o fai l

. ” I

d. at*12 n. 12. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o deni ed L ew i s ’ s r eques t for an evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he B at s on c laim under§ 2254( e) ( 2) bec au se of Lew i s ’ s fai l ur e t o devel op t he f a c tu a l r e c o rd n e c e s s a ry to s u p p o rt th is c la im

. I d. at *1 4

. In s uppor tof thes e conc l us i ons , the D i s t r i ctC our tobs erved that L ew is ha d “f

a ile d to o b

ject t o an yo f th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s per empt or ychal l eng es on the bas i s t hatt heyw er e bei ng exe r c i s e d i n a r a c i a l l yd i s c r i mi n a t o r yma n n e r , ” a n d a l s o n ot ed th a t th e re w a s “ n o re c o rd o f th e r a c i a l m a k e -u p o f

th e v e n ir e ,”10 and no “r ecor d of the r ace o f thos e s t r i cken j ur or s norany i ndi cat i on as t o t he r aci al composi t i on of t he j uryt hatt r i ed and s ent ence d [Lew i s ]

. ” I

d. at*13- 14.
T ur ni ng t o L ew i s ’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of co u n sel at th e g u ilt p h ase o f h is tri al, the D istri ct C o u rt e x e rc ise d d e n o v o re v ie w , rea so n in g th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our t ’ s r efus al t o r eac h t he i ssu e b ec aus e of w ai ver w a s n o t an in d e p e n d e n t an d a d e q u a te g ro u n d f o r d e c li n in g to addr es s t he mer i t s of t he cl ai m i n l i ghtof Penns y l vani a’ s r el axed wa i v e rd o c t r i n e i n c a p i t a l c a s e s , wh i c h wa s i n e f f e c t a tth e t i me o f L e w is ’s a lle g e d p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt. I d. at*4, *14 n. 14. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatL ew i s ’ s “cont ent i on t hatt he fai l ur e of the al i bi defe ns e w as t he re s ul t of tr i al couns el ’ s l ack o f p rep ara ti o n is no t sup p o rted b ythe re co rd,” a n d there fo re con cl ud ed thathis co u n se l’ s pres entat i on of the al i bi defense “di d notfal l bel ow an objec t i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s as d e f i n e d b y Str i ckland [ v. W as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8 (19 8 4 )].” I d. at *1 5

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt a lso c o n clud ed that L ew is’ s c o u n se l d id n o t p e rf

o rm d e f icie n tlyb ym a k in g a stra teg ic a lly r eas onabl e choi ce “ not to p res enta theoryof s el f- defe ns e that w oul d be factual l y i ncons i s t ent w i t h and t her ebyunderm i ne the cr edi bi l i t yof [Lew i s ’ s ] al i bi defe ns e. ” I d. at*16.
N ext, t he D i stri ctC ou rtrevi ew ed L ew i s’ s B r ady c l a i m, a p p ly in g § 2 2 5 4 (d )’s d e f e re n tia l sta n d a rd to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n o n th e m e ri ts o f th is is s u e . I

d. at*16 n .1 5

. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e c laim , e x p lain in g th a t “th is C o u rtca n n o t con clud e tha t th e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt unr eas onabl y appl i ed t he pri nci pal s [s i c] of B r ady t o t h i s c l a i m” an d that L ew is “ h a s n o t dem o n str ated that the s tat e c o u rt11 unr eas onabl ydet erm i ned the fa ct s bas ed on the evi dence

. ” I d. at *1 7

. N o tw ith stan d ing it s co n clus ion s, the D istri c t C o u rt gr ant ed a c er t i fi cat e of a ppea labili tyt o L ew i s as t o t hes e thr ee g u ilt p h a s e c la im s . I

d. at*19.
A s forL ew is ’ s i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el atthe penal t yphas e cl ai m , th e D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed that“the P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt re a c h e d th e m e ri ts o f th is c la im ,” and cons equent l y i t w oul d “appl y [§ 2254( d) ’ s ] d efe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew . ” I d. at *5 n . 6

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e ter m in e d : “T h e e v id e n c e th a t [ L e w is] h a s p re se n ted , b o th in t he PC R A cour t s and i n hi s habea s pr ocee di ngs , r evea l s t hathe does i n fac ts uffe r fr om a hostof m ent al heal t h i s s ues , m anyof w h ich m a yb e a ttribu tab le to h is d e e p lytr o u b le d f a m ily back g rou nd. ” I

d. at *6

. C o n seq u en tl y , the D istri ct C o u rt con cl ud ed that“t here c a n be n o reason, strat egic orotherw i se fo r tr i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e and pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence

. ” I

d. a t * 1 1 . B e c a u se o f

th is, th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld t hatt he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t unr eas onabl yappl i ed the Str i ckland

and T erry W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 529 U

. S. 362 ( 2000) s t andar ds i n as s es s i ng w hether L ew i s ’ s “tr i al couns el r ender ed c o n s titu tio n a lly in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e a t th e s e n te n c in g p h a s e .” I d. W h ile n o tin g th a t “[ t]h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o tr e a c h t h e p r e

j u d i c e i n q u i r y , ” id. at*12 n. 10, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtd eterm ined that L ew is w as p rejud iced b yh is co u n sel’s per form ance att he pena l t yphase o f hi s t r i al , r eas oni ng t hat “[h] ad the j ur yhear d the evi dence r egar di ng [Lew is’ s] l i fe hi s t or yand the conc l us i ons r each ed b ys om e of the ment al heal t h expert s , t her e i s a re as onabl e proba bi l i t ythatatl eas tone ju ro r w o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s to out w ei gh t he aggr avat i ng ci r cum stan ce s . ” I d. at*1 2. A s a12 resu lto f th ese co n clus ion s, the D istri ct C o u rt g ran ted L ew is’ s w r i tof habe as corpus and “di r ect [ed] thathe ei ther b e gi ven a new s ent enci ng hear i ng or s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent

. ” I d. B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted re lief to L e w is o n th is g ro u n d , it d e c lin e d to re a c h h is o th e r c laim s f o r re lief f ro m h is s ent ence . F o llo w in g th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n , L e w is tim e ly appea l ed and the C om m onw eal t h cr os s - appea l ed.
II.
Th e Di s t r i c t Co u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § § 2 2 5 4 a n d 2 2 4 1 , a n d we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 28 U. S

. C. § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3

. B ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rtruled o n L ew is’ s habea s pet i t i on w i t houtconduct i ng an evi dent i ary hear i ng, our re v ie w o f

its le g a l c o n c l u s io n s is p le n a ry. D uncan v. Mor t on , 256 F. 3d 189, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l “r evi ew t he s t at e court s ’ det erm i nat i ons undert he s ame st andar d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o appl y . ” T ho m as v. H

orn , 570 F. 3d 1 0 5 , 1 1 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. Fo l l o wi n g th e e n a c t me n to f t he A n t i t e r r o r i s m a n d Ef

f e c t i v e Dea t h Pe n a l t y Act o f 1996 ( A E D PA ) , habea s r el i ef c annotbe gr ant ed bya fe der al courton a cl ai m t hat w as “a djudi cat ed on t he m eri t s” in st at e cou rtun l ess t he adj udi cat i on “r es ul t ed i n a deci s i on t hat w as contr aryt o, or inv o lve d an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned by the S upr eme C our t of the U ni t ed St at es ” or “w as bas ed on an unre as onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa cts i n lig h t o f th e e v iden ce p rese n ted in the S tat e c o u rt pr ocee d ing

. ” 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( d)

. “[F] ort he purpos es of [ § ] 2 2 5 4 (d ), a c laim h a s b e e n ‘a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits in S tate13 cour tpr ocee di ngs ’ w hen a st at e courthas m ade a deci s i on that fi nal l yr es ol ves t he cl ai m bas ed on it s su bs t ance , noton a pr ocedur al , orot her , gr ound. ” T ho m as v. H

orn , 570 F. 3d at117. B u t w h e n “ th e sta te c o u rt h a s n o t re a c h e d th e m e rits o f a c laim t her eaf t erpr es ent ed t o a fe der al habea s cour t , t he def erent i al s t andar ds p rov ided byA E D PA

. . . do notappl y . ” Appel v. H orn , 250 F. 3d 203, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. “I n s uch an i ns t ance , t he fe der al habea s cour tm us tconduct a d e novo r evi ew over pu r e l e ga l qu e s t i on s a nd mi xe d qu e s t i on s of l a w a nd fa ct , as a cour tw oul d have done pr i or t o t he ena ctm entof A E D PA

. ” I d. A ddi t i onal l y , r egar dl es s of w hethera s t at e courtr eac hes the m e rits o f a c laim , a “ f

e d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rt m u st a f f o rd a sta te cour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs a pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s and .

. . t he pr es um pt i on appl i es t o fac tual det erm i nat i ons of s t at e tr i al and appel l at e court s . ” Fahy v. H orn , 5 1 6 F .3 d 1 6 9 , 1 8 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ).
III .

A . B at s on C la im
L e w is a rg u e s th a t h e sh o u ld b e g ra n ted re lief f ro m h is convi ct i on, or at l eas t r ece i ve an e vi dent i aryhear i ng, bas ed on h is c laim th a t t h e p r o se c u to r’s ju ryse lec tio n w a s ra c ially di s cr i m i nat or yi n violati o n of the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e as arti cul at ed i n B at

s on v. Kentucky , 476 U

. S. 79 ( 1986)

. M ore s p e c i f i c a l l y , Le wi s c o n t e n d s t h a th e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma f a c ie c a se o f ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n a n d th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth h as n o t of

fe red rac e-n eu tr al reaso n s fo r t h e p rose cu tor’s perem ptorystri k e s. H e al l eges t hat the fa ct s of t his case demonstr at e a pa t t ern of dis cr i m i nat orys t r i kes beca us e the14 pr os ecut orus ed ei ghtperem pt orychal l enges agai ns tA fr i can A m erican v en ir e m em b e rs a n d o n lyfo u r ag ains t w h it e v en ir e m ember s , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n an empanel ed j ury t hat cons i s t ed of al l

- w hi t e j ur or s . H e al so m ak es al l egat i ons aboutthe d iscri m inato rycu ltu re o f th e P h il ad elph ia D istri ct A tt o rne y ’s O f f ice a t th e tim e o f

h is tria l.
L ew i s r ai s ed thi s cl ai m forthe fi r s t t i m e on di r ectappea l t o t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t

. A tthatt i m e, he di d not pr ovi de anyfac tual s uppor tforhi s cl ai m , butm er el yas s ert ed th a t “th e C o m m o n w e a lth u n f a irlya n d im p ro p e r ly u se d its per empt or ychal l enges t o ex clude mem ber s of [Lew i s ’ s ] r ace (B lac k ) f

ro m th e ju ry .” ( A p p . 1 8 9 1 .) T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t L e w is f a iled to “ id e n tifysp e c if ic v e n ire m e n o r sp e c if

ic p a rts o f

th e re c o rd in su p p o rt o f h is al l egat i on, ” and de ni ed r el i ef f r om convi ct i on on t hi s gr ound beca us e of Lew i s ’ s fai l ur e t o m ake “ a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng of im p ro p e r u s e o f

p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s b yth e C o m m o n w e a lth .” L ew is I, 567 A

. 2d at1381 n. 3

. L ew is r ei t er at ed the B at s on cl ai m i n hi s amended PC R A pet i t i on, buthe di d notpr ovi de any fac tual s uppor tfor t hi s cl ai m unt i l he s ubm i t t ed obj ect i ons t o the PC R A cour t ’ s not i ce of

di s m i s s al , atw hi ch t i m e he a s s ert ed that the C o m m o n w ea lth str u ck eigh t A frican A m erican v en ir e m e m b e rs. O n a p p e a l to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt, L e w is al s o added a l l egat i ons abouta c u l tur e of di s cr i m i nat i on i n the Phi l adel phi a D i s t r i ct A t t orney ’ s O ffi ce, as demonstr at ed bythe i nfamou s M cM ahon j ur ors el ect i on tr ai ni ng t ape. T he P enn sy l van i a S up rem e C o u rt con cl ud ed thatL ew i s’ s B at s on cl ai m w as pr evi ous l y l i t i gat ed on di r ect appea l and coul d notbe re v is ite d

. L ew is I

I, 7 4 3 A. 2 d a t9 0 8

. Le wi s p r e s e n t e d th e s a me B at s on ar gum ent s t o the D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch r evi ew ed theA d d iti o n a lly , L e w is c o n ten d s th a t th e P e n n s y lv a n ia 4 Supr eme C our t ’ s concl u sion dur i ng t he PC R A appea l t hatt he pr evi ous li ti gat i on rul e barr ed r econs i der at i on of the B at s on cl ai m i s not an i nd epen den tand adeq uate gro u n d t o fo recl ose r e v i e w i n f

e d e r a l c o u r t a t t hi s t i me . W e a g r e e . Att h e t i me w hen L ew i s’ s B at

s on cl ai m w as fi r s tl i t i gat ed – dur i ng hi s di r ect appea l

– the P enns y l vani a Supr eme C our thad a pr act i ce of r eac hi ng t he m er i t s of cl ai m s i n capi t al cas es , des pit e t he e x is te n c e o f

p ro c e d u ra l d e f

e c ts

. See B an ks v. H

orn , 126 F. 3d 2 0 6 , 2 1 2 -14 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). T h ere fo re, the fa ct tha t L ew is’ s cl ai m m ay have been pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed i n hi s fi r s tappea l i s an i nadequa t e s t at e pr ocedur al rul e thatdoes not barourr evi ew of 15 cl ai m under t he defe r ent i al s t andar d of § 2254( d) and conc l uded t hatt he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s adj udi cat i on of the i s s ue on di r ectappea l w as not an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of B at s on . L e w is , 20 06 W L 23 38 40 9, at*1 3. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so rej ect ed L ew i s’ s r equ estfor an ev i den t i aryheari ng on his B at s on c laim , re a so n in g th a t L e w is f a iled in th e sta te c o u rts to d e v e lo p th e f

a c tu a l re c o rd n e c e s s a ry to s u p p o rt h is c la im

. I d. at *14.
L ew i s now ar gues thatthe D i str ictC our terr ed by a p p ly in g § 2 2 5 4 (d ) a n d th a t d e n o v o re v iew is a p p ro p ria te beca us e the B at

s on cl ai m thathe r ai s ed on di r ectappea l i s not t he s ame B at

s on cl ai m as he r ai s ed i n the P C R A and fe der al h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g s, a n d , the re f o re , the re f

u sa l o f th e sta te c o u rts to re a c h th e iss u e d id n o t c o n stitu te a n a d ju d ica tio n o n th e m e rits o f th e ins tan t cl aim to w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtan d this C o u rt ow e def er ence . W hi l e w e do notfi nd p arti cul ar l yper s uas i ve

4t he cl ai m att hi s t i m e. 16 L ew i s’ s ar gu m ent that the v ari ou s i t erat i on s of his B at s on c laim actual l y co n sti tut ed tw o di s t i nctcl ai m s , w e nee d notr es ol ve w hethert he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s deci si on on di r ect appea l i s ent i t l ed t o A E D PA defe r ence b eca us e w e conc l ude t hat , even i f w e exe r ci s e d e novo r evi ew , hi s cl ai m fai l s for several reas on s.
T he fi r s ts hor t comi ng w i t h r es pectt o thi s claim i s t he abs ence of a t i m el yobj ect i on t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s ex erc ise of per empt or ys t r i kes dur i ng j urys el ect i on. A l t hough B at s on w as notdeci ded unt i l aft erL ew i s ’ s t r i al and dur i ng t he pende ncyof hi s di r ectappea l, L ew i s di d notm ake a nyobj ect i ons t o the pr os ecut or ’ s us e of pe r empt orychal l enges underthe t henpr evai l i ng s t andar d of Swa i n v
. A l a b a ma , 380 U

. S. 202, 223- 24 ( 1965)

. A s t he Supr eme C our texpl aine d , an obj ect i on t o t he juryselec ti o n p roc ess u n d er Sw a in “nec es s ar i l y s t at es an equa l pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on s ubj ectt o pr oof undert he B at s on s ta n d a rd ,” Fo rdv . G e o rg ia , 498 U

. S. 411, 420 ( 1991) , and ther efor e s erves t o pr eser ve s uch a c l ai m forfur t herr evi ew . B eca us e B at s on r el i es on t r i al j udges “t o deci de i f the ci r cumst ance s conce r ni ng t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s u s e o f

p e r e mp t o r yc h a l l e n g e s c r e a t e s a p r i ma fac i e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on, ” 476 U

. S. at 97, w e have hel d that a t i m el yobj ect i on i s a pr ere q u is i t e t o r ai s i ng a B at s on c l a i m. A bu -Jam al v. H

orn , 5 2 0 F .3 d 2 7 2 , 2 8 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); s ee Al l en v. Lee , 3 6 6 F .3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 7 -2 8 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (e n b a n c ); Thom as v. Moo re , 866 F. 2d 803, 804 ( 5th C i r . 1989)

. I n A bu- Jam al , we expl ai ned thatT he p rocedu ral po sture of A bu -J am al ’s B at s on c laim is 5 s i m i l art o t hatof Lew i s ’ s cl ai m . A l t houg h A b u -Jamal , l i ke L e w is, w a s co n v icte d p rio r t o th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in B at s on , h i s d i r e c ta p p e a l wa s s t i l l pe n d i n g wh e n t h e S u p r e me C our tdeci ded B at

s on , an d ther efor e B at s on appl i ed re tr o a c tiv e ly to h is c a s e . See G r i f f i th v. Kentucky , 479 U

. S. 314, 328 ( 1987)

. M or eover , s i m i l ar l yt o L ew i s , “A bu- J amal di d not obj ectt o t he pr os ecut or ’ s us e of pe r empt orychal l enges atany poi ntdur i ng voirdir e or at hi s 1982 t r i al

. A bu- J amal fi r s tr ai s ed t he ar gum entt hatt he pr os ecut orus ed per empt o ry str ike s i n a r aci al l ydi s cr i m i nat or ym anneron di r ectapp ea l t o t he P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt , w h ic h is s u e d its o p in io n in 1 9 8 9 .” 5 2 0 F

. 3 d at 28 3 -84 (fo o tno te om itted). 17 “[e ] ven bef

or e B at s on , a t i m el yobj ect i on of r aci al bi as i nvol vi ng j urycomposi t i on w o u ld ha ve al er t ed the j udge t o err or s t hatm i ghtbe corr ect ed i n t he fi r s t i ns t ance and gi ven t he jud g e the oppor tuni t yt o devel op a compl et e r ecor d of the ju ry se le c tio n p ro c e s s f o r a p p e lla te re v ie w .”
520 F. 3d at282. T her efor e, w e conc l uded thatt he exi s t ence of a tim e lyo b

jec tio n to th e u se o f

p e re m p to rystrik e s is n o t m e re ly a m a tter o f

sta te p ro c e d u ra l law ; in ste a d , “ a tim e ly o b jec tio n is r equi r ed t o pr es erve” a cl ai m ed B at s on vi ol at i on forappea l and f a i l i n g t o d o s o wi l l r e s u l ti n f o r f e i tu r e o f th e c l a i m. I

d. at284. 5

L ew is co n tend s tha t his pro se c o m m e n ts d u ri n g jury sel ect i on w e re s uff

i ci ent t o p res erve hi s B at s on cl ai m . I n t he cour s e of voi rdi r e, L ew is spoke outi n r es pons e t o the18 pr os ecut or ’ s us e of per empt orys t r i kes on tw o occa s i ons , atone poi nts t at i ng, “So pr ej udi ced. So pr ej udi ced, ” and a tanother p o in t s ta tin g , “ I k n e w h e w o u ld d o th a t.” (A p p . 2 1 7 , 4 3 9 .) B e c a u se o n e o f

th e p rim a ryre a so n s f o r r e q u irin g a tim e ly obj ect i on t o t he exe r ci s e of pe r empt orys t r i kes i s t o al ertt he tr i al ju d g e to th e p u rp o rte d m isc o n d u c t an d to a llo w th e trial j u d g e to r emedyt he di s cr i m i nat i on, w e mustas s es s w hetherei t heror bot h of Lew i s ’ s comm ent s s houl d have p u t the tr i al j udge on not i ce of t he al l eged r aci al l ydi s cr i m i nat oryus e of pe r empt ory chal l enges . T he s t at ement“I knew he w oul d do t hat ” ca r r i es w ith it so m a n yn e u tra l an d e v e n b e n ig n im p lica tio n s th a t itis t oo am b igu o u s of an utt er ance t o expec tthati tw oul d al ertthe t r i al j ud g e to an al l egat i on of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. O n the contr ary , t he s t at em ent“So pr ej udi ced. So pr ej udi ced” i s not s ubj ectt o t he s ame neutr al or harm l es s i nt erpr et at i on. Y eteven th o u g h it i s a c c u sa to ry , this s in g le re m a rk , u ttere d b yL e w is hi m s el f, and nothi s couns el , pr ovi ded i ns uffi ci ent not i ce t o the tr ial jud g e o f a c lai m that the p rose cu ti o n w as stri k ing v en ir e m em b ers in a rac ial lyd iscri m inato rym an n er.
N onethel es s , ev en as s um i ng L ew i s pr oper l ypr es erved t hi s cl ai m , he has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fac i e s how i ng of a B at s on v io la tio n . B at

s on claim s are an aly ze d u n d er a thre e-p art bur den s hi ft i ng fr amew or k:

“ F irst, a d e f

e n d a n t m u st m a k e a p rim a f a c ie s how i ng t hata p erem pt orychal l enge ha s been exer ci s ed on the basis of r ace . Second, i f that show i ng has bee n m ade, th e prosecuti on m ust o f f e r a ra c e -n e u tra l b a sis f o r strik in g th e ju ro r in ques t i on. T hi r d,

. . . t he tr i al cour tm us tdet erm i ne19 w hether t he defe ndant has s how n p u rpos eful d is c ri m in a tio n .”
Mi l l er- E lv. C ockrell , 5 37 U

. S. 322, 328- 29 ( 2003) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “A pr i m a fac i e cas e w i l l be found i f, aft ercons i der i ng t he[] fact s and all rel evan tci rcum st ances, th e ‘evidence [ i s] s uffi ci entt o perm i tt he tr i al j udge t o dr aw an i nfer ence that di s cr i m i nat i on has occurr ed’ i n t he pr o secut or ’ s exer ci s e of per empt or ychal l enges . ” A bu- Jam al , 520 F. 3d at288 ( quot i ng J o h n so n v . C a lif

o rn ia , 545 U

. S. 162, 170 ( 2005) )

. I n Bats on , t he Supr eme C our ti de nt i fi ed “a ‘ pat t ern’ of s t r i kes agai ns tbl ack juro rs inclu d ed in the p arti cu lar ve n ir e” an d “the p rose cu tor’s ques t i ons and s t at em en ts dur i ng voirdir e e x a m in a tio n a n d in exer ci s i ng hi s cha ll en ges ” as t w o of the “r el evant circu m stan ce s” c o u rt s m ayco n side r i n d e c id in g w h ethe r a de f e n d a n th a s e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f

r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on, 476 U

. S. at96- 97, and w e have iden ti fi ed s ever al addi t i onal r el evantfac t or s , i ncl udi ng “‘ how m any m e m b e rs o f

th e c o g n iza b le r a c ial g ro u p a re in th e v e n ire p a n e l; t he natur e of the cr i m e; and the r ace o f the d efe ndantand the vi ct i m . ’ ” A bu- Jam al , 520 F. 3d at 288 n. 16 ( al t er at i ons om i t t ed) ( q u o t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. C l em ons , 8 4 3 F

. 2 d 7 4 1 , 7 4 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 )); s ee Si m m on s v. B ey er , 4 4 F

. 3 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 7 (3d C ir

. 1995) ( l i s t i ng t he r el evantfac t or s att he fi r s ts t ep of the B at s on anal y s is a s “(1) t he numberof r aci al gr oup m ember s i n the panel , ( 2) t he natur e of t he cr i m e, ( 3) the r ace of the def endant and the vi ct i m , ( 4) a patt ern of s t ri k es agai ns tr aci al gr oup m e m b e rs, a n d (5 ) th e p ro se c u tio n ’s q u e stio n s a n d sta tem e n ts d u ri n g the v o ird ir e” ).I n A bu- Jam al , w e expl ai ned the di ffe r ence betw een the 6 s t r i ke r at e and the exc l us i on r at e: “The s t r i ke ra t e i s comput ed bycompar i ng t he num ber of per empt orys t r i kes the pr os ecut or us ed t o r emove . . . pot ent i al j ur o rs [ o f t he def endant ’ s r ace ] w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s t o t a l n u mbe ro f p e r e mpt o r ys t r i kes exer ci sed, ” w her eas the “e xcl us i on r at e . . . i s cal cul at ed by com pari ng t he percentage of exerci sed chall eng es used ag ai nst

. . . pot ent i al j ur or s [of t he defenda nt ’ s r ace ] w i t h the per cent age o f

. . . p o ten tial ju ro rs [ o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s ra c e ] k n o w n to b e in t he veni r e. ” 520 F. 3d at290. 20 I n A bu- Jam al , w e emphas i zed the i m por t ance ( al t hough notnece s s i t y ) of s uppl y i ng i nform at i on aboutt he s t r i ke r at e and t he exc l us i on r at e i n or der t o demonstr at e a pr i m a fa ci e vi ol at i on of B at s on , n o t i n g t h a t“ [ t ] h e S u p r e m e C o u rth a s f o u n d p r i ma fac i e B at s on c a se s b a se d o n a p a ttern o f d isc rim in a tio n , b u t o n ly w her e the tr i al r ecor d has i ndi cat ed both t he str i ke ra t e and t he ra c ia l c o m p o s itio n o f

th e v e n ir e .” A bu- Jam al , 520 F. 3d at290.

6 D es p i t e t h e f

a c tt h a tt h e r e c o r d r e v e a l e d t h a t“ t h e p r o s e c u t i on us ed t en per empt or ys tr i kes t o r emove bl ack veni r eper s ons fr om t he p e t i tj u r yo u to f

a t o t a l o f

f i f t e e n p e r e mpt o r ys t r i kes e x e rc ise d , res u lti n g in a strik e ra te o f 6 6 .6 7 % ,” w e w e re u n a b le t o co nclude t hat A bu -J am al had dem on strat ed a pri m a faci e case of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n t he abse nce of “e vi dence fr om w hi ch to d eterm ine th e ra cial co m p o sit ion o r t o tal n u m b er o f th e e n ti re veni r e” – i nform at i on t hat“w oul d perm i tt he comput at i on of the ex clus ion rate an d w o u ld p rov ide im p o rt an t con textu al m ark ers t o eval uat e the s t r i ke r at e. ” I d. at291- 92.21 T he evi dence in s uppor tof a pr i m a fa ci e vi ol at i on of B at s on i s w eake r i n t he pre s ent cas e t han i tw as i n A bu- Jam al

. H er e, L ew i s al l eges t hatt he pr os ecut orexer ci s ed ei ght p ere m p to ry stri k es a g ains t A frican A m erican p o tential juro rs and fouragai ns t w hi t e pot ent i al j ur or s , and thatL ew i s w as tr i ed and convi ct ed byan al l- w hi t e j ury . H ow ever , L ew i s does not cit e to a n yrec o rd su p p o rt, n o r d o es h e o ff er o ther su p p o rt out s i de the r ecor d, t o s ubs t ant i at e thi s bar e al l egat i on, and t her efor e w e ca nnotr el yon t hi s i nform at i on t o eval uat e w hether h e h as demonstr at ed a pr i m a fa ci e B at s on v io la tio n . See i d. at 292 n. 1 8

. A ddi t i onal l y , L ew i s acknow l edges t hatt he r aci al composi t i on of the ent i r e veni r e r emai ns unknow n and i ns t ead pos i t s that “t he veni r e l i kel yw as s t at i s t i cal l ys i m i l art o t he over al l popul at i on of Phi l adel phi a. ” W i t houti nform at i on about t h e n u mb e ra n d r a c i a l c o mp o s i t i o n o f th e e n t i r e v e n i r e , we cannot cal cul at e t he excl us i on r at e and w e l ack the “c ont extual m arker s” t o an a ly z e t he si gn i fi cance of the stri ke rat e. T hu s, even i f w e w er e t o acc eptas t rue Lew i s ’ s b ald as s ert i on t hat ei ght of the tw el ve veni r e mem ber s w hom the pr os ecut ors t ruck w er e A fr i can A m er i can, a s t r i ke r at e o f 6 6

. 67% i s i ns uffi ci ent i nform at i on t o es t abl i s h a prim a faci e ca s e of r aci al d is c ri m in a tio n in th e e x e rc is e o f p e re m p to ry st ri k e s . See i d. at 293 ( “A s not ed, her e the pr os ecut i on us ed t en of f i ft een per empt or ys t r i kes ag ainstbl ack pot ent i al j ur or s . W e have n ev er f o u n d a p ri m a f

ac ie ca se b ase d o n sim il ar f ac ts. ”).
In an a t t empt t o bol s t erhi s cl ai m , L ew i s poi nt s t o the M cM ahon tr ai ni ng t ape, cr eat ed i n 1987 and fe atur i ng A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ctA t t orney J ack M cM ahon, as evi dence thata cul tur e of di s cr i m i nat i on exi s te d thr oughoutthe Phi l adel phi a D i s t r i ct A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce a tt he t i m e L ew i s w as pr os ecut ed. A l t hough22 m anyof the pr act i ces advoca t ed i n the M cM ahon t ape f l outt he pr i nci pl es out l i ned i n Ba t s on , the tap e w as c rea ted f o u r y ea rs aft erL ew i s ’ s t r i al and fa i l s t o pr ovi de any i nform at i on aboutt he r out i ne pr act i ces of the part i cul arpr os ecut ori n L ew i s ’ s cas e or t he pr act i ces actual l yut i l i zed a tL ew i s ’ s t r i al

. T his type of gen eral i nfo rm at i on , w hil e no t i nco nsequ enti al , w i l l no t do as a su b stitu te f

o r th e c o n c re te, c a se sp e c if ic in f o r m a ti o n th a t is nece s s aryt o demonstr at e a pr i m a fa ci e B at s on vi ol at i on.
T h u s, th e o n ly re liab le in f o rm a tio n w e h a v e to a ss e ss th is cl ai m i s evi dence of the fa ctt hatL ew i s i s A fr i can A m er i can a nd t hatt he vi ct i m , E l l i s , w as A fr i can A m er i can. T hi s does not s uppor tan i nfer ence t hatthe cr i m e w as r aci al l y m ot i vat ed, nor i s t her e anyi ndi cat i on t hat th e cr i m e w as r aci al l ychar ged. M or eover , t her e i s no evi dence of t he r aci al composi t i on of the veni r e, and ther e i s nothi ng m or e t han uns uppor t ed al l egat i ons about t he r aci al composi t i on of the empanel ed j uryand the r ace o f th e v e n ire m e m b e rs w h o m th e p ro se c u tio n e x c lu d e d w ith its per empt or y s t r i kes

. A s a re s ul t , w e s i m pl ycannotconcl ude that L ew i s has m et hi s bur den, att he fi r s ts t ep of B at s on , “t o devel op a r ecor d s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a patt ern of di s cr i m i nat ion that gi ves r i s e t o an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” See i d. at291. B ecause w e do no tfi nd L ew i s’ s B at s on c l a i m m e r i t o r i o u s , we al s o r ej ecthi s ar gum entthathi s appel l at e couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o m ake a n adequa t e pr offe ri n s uppor tof his B at s on claim o n d ir ec t app ea l. L as tly , w e d en yL ew is’ s r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng on thi s cl ai m fors i m i l ar r eas ons as expl ai ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our t ; t hat i s , w e conc l ude th a t h e h a s f

a iled a t ev e rysta g e o f

h is s tate c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s toD e s p it e L ew is’ s rep ea ted re q u ests fo r an ev iden ti ary 7 h e a rin g , h e f

a iled to m a k e a n ye f

f o rts to p ro v id e re liab le evidence i n s up po rt of

his B at s on cl ai m , s uch as bypr ovi di ng aff i davi t s of the s t r i cken ve ni r e mem ber s att es t i ng t o t hei rr ace , o b tai n ing v o ter registr ati o n ca rds id en ti fy ing the s tr icke n v en ir e m ember s ’ r ace , or s ubm i t t i ng exhi bi t s of L ew i s ’ s not es fr om j ur ys el ect i on, t he not es of hi s couns el , orthe n ot es of the prosecutor

. B e cause L ew i s has not avai l ed h i m sel f of these m eans of s ubs t ant i ati ng hi s al l egat i ons , w e fa i l t o s ee how an e v id e n tiary he a rin g w o u ld b e b e n e f icia l. 23 devel op t he fa ctual bas i s nece s s aryt o s uppor t this cl ai m . 28 7 U

. S. C

. § 2254( e) ( 2) ( “I f the appl i canthas fai l ed t o devel op the fa ctua l bas is of

a c lai m in S tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing s, the c o u rt s hal l nothol d an evide n ti aryhear i ng on the cl ai m unl es s t he appl i cants how s t hat( A ) the claim r el i es on . . . ( i i ) a fa ctual pr edi cat e thatcoul d nothave be en pr evi ous l ydi s cover ed th ro u g h th e e x e rc ise o f

d u e d ili g e n c e ” ); s ee Mi chael W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 52 9 U

. S

. 42 0, 43 5 (200 0) ( exp l ai ning thatthe p urpose o f § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) i s “ t o e n s u r e th e p r i s o n e ru n d e r t a k e s h i s o wn d il ig e n t se a rc h f

o r e v id e n c e ” ); T

aylor v. H

orn , 5 0 4 F. 3 d 416, 437 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “‘ Feder al court s s i t t i ng i n habea s ar e notan al t erna ti v e forum fortr y i ng fac t s and i s s ues w hi ch a pr i s oner m ad e ins u ff

ici en t eff

o rtto p u rsue in s tat e p roc ee d ing s. ’” ( quot i ng Mi c h a e lWi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U

. S

. at 43 7 )).24 B . I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel a t th e G u ilt P h a se C la im
L e w is a rg u e s th a t h e is e n tit le d to re lief f ro m h is convi ct i on beca us e hi s tr i al couns el r ender ed i n ef fect i ve as s i s t ance byfai l i ng t o pr oper l yi nves t i gat e and pr es ent hi s al i bi d ef en se a n d b yn o t prese n ti n g a the o ry o f self d ef en se. M o re sp e c if ica lly , L e w is c o n ten d s th a t h is tri a l c o u n se l f a iled to i nves t i gat e document ary evi dence – namel ybus t i cket s – w hi ch s uppor t ed hi s al i bi defe ns e, fai l ed t o cont actand s ec u re the at t end ance o f cert ai n ali bi w i t nesses, and fai l ed to properly pr epar e the al i bi w i t nes s es w ho di d t es t i fy

. L ew i s as s ert s t hathe w as pr ej udi ced by hi s couns el ’ s l ack of pr epar at i on beca us e the pr es ent at i on of a w eak a l i bi defe ns e s ugges t ed cons ci ous nes s of gui l tand bol s t er ed the C om m onw eal t h’ s cas e. Le wi s r a i s e d t h i s i n e f

f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i m f

o rt h e f i r s tt i me befor e the Penns y l vani a Suprem e C our ton appea l fr om t he d en ial o f h is PC R A p eti ti o n . T h e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt det erm i ned thatt hi s cl ai m w as w ai ved becaus e “[t ] he ver s i on of t he PC R A i n eff

ectatt he t i m e [Lew i s ] fi l ed t he i ns t antpet i t i on p ro v id e d th a t a n is s u e is w a iv e d ‘i f it c o u ld h a v e b e e n ra is e d

. . . i n a pr i orpr ocee di ng, ’ ” L ew is I I, 743 A

. 2d at 9 0 9 (quot i ng 42 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 9 5 4 4 (b )). It a lso e x p lain e d th a t th is p a rticu lar c laim w a s “ n o t ra ise d b e f o re th e P C R A c o u rt in [L ew i s’ s] P C R A p e ti t i on or anyam end m ents no r i n [L ew i s’ s] O bj ect i on t o t he PC R A cour t ’ s no ti ce of i nt entt o di s m i s s , ” i d. a t 9 0 9 n .2 , an d th e d o c trin e o f “ ‘re lax e d w a iv e r’ d o e s n o t ap p ly t o cl ai m s m ade i n capi t al PC R A pet i t i ons . ” I d. at909.25 A lth o u g h th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e c lin e d to r eac h t he m er i t s of Lew i s ’ s cl ai m on gr ounds t hati tw as w ai ved, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthi s deci s i on w as bas ed on an in d e p e n d e n t an d a d e q u a te s tate p ro c e d u ra l ru le s u c h th a t it w o u ld b a r o u r re v iew o f th e c laim . F e d e ra l h a b e a s c o u rts “ ‘w ill n o t re v iew a q u e stio n o f f e d e ra l law d e c id e d b y a sta te c o u rt if th e d e c isio n o f

th a t co u rt re sts o n a sta te la w g r o u n d th a t is i ndepende ntof t he feder al ques t i on and ade quat e t o s uppor tthe j udgm ent

. ’ ” L am bri

x v. Singl etary , 520 U

. S. 51 8 , 5 2 2 ( 1997) ( quot i ng C ol em an v. Thom ps on , 5 0 1 U .S

. 7 2 2 , 7 2 9 (1 9 9 1 )) . A s t at e pr ocedur al rul e i s adequa t e i f i tw as “fi r m l yes t abl i s hed and re g u lar lyf

o llo w e d ” a t th e tim e o f

th e a lleg e d p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt. Ford , 498 U

. S. at424. T o be cons i der ed fi r m l yes t abl i s hed and r egul ar l y fol l ow ed, “( 1) t he st at e proc edur al rul e [must ] s peak[ ] i n unm i s t akabl e t erm s ; ( 2) al l s t at e appel l at e cour t s [m us thave] r efus ed t o r evi ew t he pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s o n the m er i t s ; and ( 3) t he s t at e court s ’ r efus al i n thi s i ns t ance [m us tbe] cons i s t ent w i t h ot herdeci s i ons . ” D octor v. W alters , 96 F. 3d 675, 683- 84 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ).
I n 1998, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ta n n o u n c e dthat i t w oul d no l onger “dec l i ne t o appl yor di naryw ai verpr i nci pl es

. . . i n P C R A ap peal s . ” C om m onw eal th v. A l br echt , 720 A

. 2d 693, 700 ( Pa. 1998)

. B utfortw o deca des pr i ort o t hi s deci s i on, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t m ai nt ai ned a “ pr act i ce of r eac hi ng t he mer i t s of cl ai m s i n PC R A pet i t i ons i n capi t al cas es re g a rd les s o f

th e f a ilu re o f th e p e tit io n to m e e t th e a p p ro p ria te pr ocedur al cr i t er i a. ” B an ks v. H orn , 1 2 6 F

. 3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 4 (3d C ir

. 199 7 ). T her efor e, notw i t hs t andi ng t he fa ctthatthe P ennsy l vani a Supr eme C our trul ed on Lew i s ’ s PC R A appea l aft eri t s deci s i on i n A l br echt , forpurpos es of det erm i ni ngT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o co n cluded thatatthe t i m e of 8 Le wi s ’ s p u rp o rt e d p r o c e du r a l de fa ul t , the Pe n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our tut i l i zed the doctr i ne of r el axed w ai ver t o r evi ew al l capi t al c la im s . S e e L e w is , 2006 W L 2338409, at*4. H ow ever , t he D i s t r i c tCou r tc o n s i d e r e d 1 9 8 4 t o b e t h e r e l e v a n tt i me f or asses si ng t he adeq uacy of P enn sy l van i a’s w ai ver rules becau se th is w a s th e y e a r i n w h ic h L e w is f ile d h is d ir e c t a p p e a l. See i d. B ec au se th e P en n sy lva n ia S u p rem e C o u rtfo cu sed o n L ew is’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e h i s i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m i n h i s P CRA p e t i t i o n o ra n ys u b s e q u e n ta me n d me n t s t o t h e p e t i t i o n , we co n side r th is t o b e the relev an t t im e f o r asse ssing L ew is’ s w aive r. 26 wh e t h e rt h e r e i s a p r o c e d u r a l b a r t o o u r r e v i e w o f Le wi s ’ s c l a i m, w e m ustl oo k to the ti m e atw hich hi s procedu ral defa ult s u p p o s e d ly o c c u rr e d

. See D octor , 9 6 F. 3 d a t6 8 4 ( e x p l a i n i ng th a t th e re lev a n t ti m e f

o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a ru le w a s f irm ly estab li sh ed an d reg u larl y a p p li ed is no t w h en the s tat e c o u rt re lied o n it, “ b u t r a th e r . . . the d a te o f th e w a iv e r th a t alle g e d ly o c c u rre d ” ). A lth o u g h L e w is h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto ra ise h is cl ai m of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n hi s PC R A pet i t i on, t h e p e t i t i o n wa s f

i l e d i n 1 9 9 5 ( a n d a me n d e d i n 1 9 9 6 ) a t a t i me w hen t he P enns y l vani a S upr eme C our t s t i l l appl i ed the doctr i ne of r el axed w ai ver t o PC R A appea l s i n capi t al cas es . T her efor e, 8 the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt ’s re f u s al t o rea ch L ew is’ s in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im b e c a u se o f h is f a ilu re to r ai s e i t in h is PC R A pet i t i on does notbarourr evi ew as i tw as notan i ndepende ntand ade quat e pr ocedur al rul e.27 B e c a u se th e P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts d id n o t re a c h th e m e rits o f L e w is’s c laim o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l a t th e g u ilt phas e of hi s t r i al , w e r evi ew thi s cl ai m de novo. T he t es tfor i neff ect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel con t ai ns t w o co m po nen t s: “F ir st, the d ef

e n d an t m u st sho w that co u n sel’s per form ance w as defi ci ent

. T hi s r equi r es s how i ng t hatcouns el m ade err or s s o s er i ous that c o u n sel w as not functi on i ng as the ‘cou nsel’ g u a ra n tee d th e d e f

e n d a nt byt he S ix th Am e n d me n t

. Se c o n d , th e d e f e n d a n tmus ts how t hatt he def

i ci entper form an ce pr ej udi ced the d ef en se. T h is r eq u ir es sh o w ing that co u n sel’s err or s w er e s o s er i ous as t o depr i ve t he def endant o f a f a irtr ia l, a tr ia l w h o s e re s u lt is re lia b le .”
Str i ckland , 466 U

. S. at 687. T o es t abl i s h defi ci entper form ance , a “de fenda nt m us t s how t hat couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s . ” I d. at 6 8 8

. In anal y zi ng t hi s fi r s tpr ong of the Str i ckland t es t , t her e i s a s t r ong p re s u m p tio n th a t c o u n s e l p e rf o rm e d re a s o n a b ly. I

d. a t 6 8 9

. To est abli sh prej ud i ce, t he d efen dan t“m ustshow that there i s a r eas onabl e pro b abi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal e rro 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 r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yi s a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci ent t o underm i ne confi dence i n t he out come. ” I d. a t 6 9 4

. Un d e rt h i s s t a n d a r d , we ar e unabl e t o concl ude thatt he conduc tof Lew i s ’ s couns el w as obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e, and eve n i f i tw ere , w e w oul d be unabl e t o co n cl ude thatt he r es ul tof Lew i s ’ s t r i al w oul d have b ee n d iffe ren t bu t fo r his co u n sel’s error.28 N one o f L ew i s ’ s ar gum ent s per s uade us t hathe has over come t he pr es um pt i on that h i s couns el per form ed re a so n a b ly

. D e sp ite L e w is’s c o m p lain t th a t h is tria l co u n se l d id nots uffi ci ent l ypr epar e hi s al i bi w i t nes s es , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es ot herw i s e. I n t he mi ddl e o f t r i al , L ew i s ’ s couns el di s cus s ed w i t h t he courtt he di ffi cul t i es he w as havi ng i n pr es ent ing the al i bi defe ns e. ( A pp. at 1163. ) H e ment i oned thathe had $2, 500 to b ri n g w itn esse s in f

rom C ali fo rnia b u t h e w an ted to m ak e su re t he w i t nes s es w oul d be benef i ci al and have mat er i al t es t i m ony befo re theycam e t o co urt

. H e al so st at ed thathe h ad o n ly r ece i ved the addr es s fo r L ew i s ’ s br other , M i chae l , a w eek befor e and t hat he w as havi ng di ffi cul t ycont act i ng hi m , addi ng t hatt he phone number f o r M i chae l ’ s w i fe ha d been di s connec t ed. L ew i s ’ s couns el s ugges t ed thathe coul d notgo forw ar d w i t h t he defens e unt i l he r eac hed M i chae l L ew i s . ( A pp. a t 1 1 6 4 -65. ) Th e prosecutorcom m ented that based on his i nves t i g a t or ’ s di s cus s i ons w i t h M i chae l L ew i s and hi s w i fe, they appea r ed r el uct antt o come t o Phi l adel phi a and se r ve as al i bi w itn e s s e s . (A p p . a t 1 1 6 6 -6 7 .)
D e s p ite th e se d if

f icu lti e s, L e w is’s c o u n se l w a s a b le to pr es entM i chae l L ew i s as an al i bi w i t nes s . M i chae l ’ s t es t i m ony – t hathe m et L ew i s att he Tra i l w ay s bus s t at i on i n C al i forni a on N ovember19 – w as u n compl i cat ed and ther efor e underm i nes L ew i s ’ s ar gum entt hathe w as i nadequa t el y pr epar ed. ( A pp. at 142 5

. ) Si m i l ar l y , al t hough C l ar ence E dw ar ds s t at ed thatt he fi rst ti m e he w as cont act ed t o be an a l i bi w i t nes s w as t he day befor e he t es t i fi ed atthe tr i al , he al s o s t at ed thatL ew i s ’ s tr ia l co u n sel w as try ing to get in t o u ch w ith h im , (A p p . at 13 0 7 -08 ), a n d h i s t e s t i m o n y – t h a t L e w i s a s k e d f o r a r i d e t o th e T r a i l w a ys b u s s tatio n a ro u n d N o v e m b e r 1 4 – w a s s tra ig h tf o rw a rd a s w e ll.A l t hough L ew i s as s ert s thatM cC or ey ’ s test i m onyw as 9 i m por t antt o s how t hat t he C om m onw eal t h des t r oy ed evi dence o f h is b u s tic k e ts to C a lifo rn ia, w e re jec t th is a rg u m e n t – a s w e ll as the ar gum entt hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve fornot r eques t i ng t he bus t i cket s fr om t he C om m onw eal t h – forr eas ons e x p l a i n e d i n P a r tI I I

. C. 29 (A p p . at 12 8 5 -88

. ) A s fo r L ew is’ s co n tention that h is co u n sel’s fai l ur e t o r ecogni ze hi s fi ancé e, St ephani e M cC or ey , w hen s he ent er ed the court r oom i n vi ol at i on of a s equestra t i on or der caus ed hi m t o l os e a c ruci al w i t nes s , M cC or eyadmi t t ed thats he di d not know anyt hi ng about t he ca s e and that , upon ent er i ng the cou rtroom , she t old a cou rtoff i cer that s he w as not a w i t ness. ( A pp. at1090, 1094. ) L ew i s ’ s couns el stat ed thathe had met w i t h M cC or eyfor a few m i nut es t he pre vi ous w eek and t hathe had l i s t ed heras a pos s i bl e w i t nes s onl ybecaus e L ew i s had g iv e n h im h e r na m e . (A p p . a t 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 4 .) A d d iti o n a lly , L e w is has notoffe r ed any af fid av i tfr om M cC or eyas t o w hat tes tim o n ys h e c o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d a t trial. L ik e w ise , w ith 9 re sp e c t to p o te n tial a lib i w itn e ss e s w h o d id n o t tes tify , L e w is has notpr es ent ed any aff i davi t s des cr i bi ng w hatt hos e w i t nes s es w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d a b o u t.
For al l of t hes e r eas ons , w e cannot agr ee w i t h L ew i s that hi s t r i al couns el ’s in v es t i gat i on and pr es ent at i on of the al i bi d e f e n s e wa s o b

j e c t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e . M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f we w e re to c o n c lu d e th a t h is c o u n se l’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t, i n l i ghtof the overw hel m i ng evi dence agai ns thi m – i ncl udi ng s i x ey ew i t nes s es w ho knew L ew i s and i dent i fi ed hi m as the as s ai l antand the ey egl as s es l eftatthe c ri m e sce ne w hi chS im ilarly , the re is n o sta tem e n t f ro m L e w is th a t h is 10 c o u n se l f

a iled to in v e stig a te o r d isc u s s w ith h im a p o ss ib le t heoryof s el f def

ens e. 30 r e s e mb l e d o n e s t h a tL e wi s h a d b e e n p h o t o g r a p h e d we a r i n g – we w o u ld no tbe ab l e t o co nclude t hat there i s a r easona ble pr obabi l i t yt hatt he out come of L ew i s ’ s t r i al w oul d have be en differ ent i n the absence o f his cou nsel ’s err ors.
N orcan w e conc l ude that L ew i s has demonstr at ed that h is c o u n se l p e rf

o rm e d u n r e a so n a b lyb yf a ili n g to p re se n t a t heor y o f

s e l f d e f e n s e i n a d d i t i o n t o , o ri n s t e a d o f , th e a l i bi defe nse. A s L ew i s em ph asi zes el sew here i n hi s app eal , he h as, fr om t he t i m e of hi s arr es t , r el i ed upon an al i bi , and he ha s not pr ovi ded anyi ndi cat i on t hat he w oul d have a l l ow ed hi s couns el to p re se n t a th e o ry o f se lf d e f e n se . In ste a d , L e w is’s sta tem e n ts 10 dur i ng pr e- t r i al hear i ngs r evea l an i ns i s t ence on m ai nt ai ni ng an al i bi defe ns e and, as t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, i t w oul d have be en fac tu all y i ncons i s t entt o pr es enta theoryof s el f def ens e i n the al t ernat i ve. M or eover , t he t es t i m onyof the onl yw i t nes s w ho o b se rv e d th e e n tire a lterc a tio n b e tw e e n L e w is a n d E lli s w o u ld h a v e d ir e c tly c o n tr a d ic te d a th e o ry o f s e lf d e f e n s e . (A p p . 1 1 1 3 .) T h e re f o re , L e w is h a s n o t o v e rc o m e th e p re su m p tio n th a t h is cou nsel ’s decis i on no tt o p res ent a theo ry of sel f defense w as a s t r at egi cal l yr eas onabl e one, and w e r ej ecthi s ar gum ent s t o the c o n t r a r y.31 C . B r ady C la im
L e w is a rg u e s th a t h e is e n tit led to re lief f ro m h is convi ct i on beca us e the C o m m onw eal t h vi ol at ed B r ady v. Mar yland , 373 U

. S. 83 ( 1963) , bys uppr es s i ng evi dence of a bus t i cket fr om P hil adelphi a t o S an D i ego , con t ai ned i n a bri efcase he w as carr y i ng att h e ti m e of hi s arr es t , t hathe al l eges s uppor t ed hi s al i bi defe ns e. L ew i s cont ends t hatt he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt, o n P C R A re v iew , u n re a so n a b ly d e t e r mi n e d t h e f

a c t s r e l e v a n t t o t h i s c l a i m b y c r e d i t i ng t he test imonyof D et ect i ve K ane, t he arr es t i ng offi cer , t hatt he G r eyhound bus ti cketcont ai ned i n L ew i s ’ s br i efc as e di d not i ndi ca te t he dat e, or i gi n, ordes t i nat i on of tr avel and thatt he b ri ef ca se a s w ell a s its c o n tents w ere turn ed o v er to L ew is’ s fi ancé e. L ew is mai nt ai ns thatthe br i efc as e cont ai ned s tubs of hi s bus t i cket s fr om hi s tr i p t o San D i ego , w h ic h w oul d have p lace d h im o u tsi d e o f P h ila d elph ia on the n igh t of the m u rde r. H e cont ends t hat D et ect i ve K ane t ook “ac t i ve” s t eps t o conce al t he t i cket s byfail ing t o i nvent oryt he br i efc as e, pr es erve the t i cket s , ordi s cl os e them t o t he def ens e.
I n B r ady , t he Supr eme Courthel d t hat“the s uppr es s i on byt he p rose cut i on of evi dence favor abl e t o an ac cus ed upon r eques tvi ol at es d u e p roce s s w her e the evi dence i s m at er i al ei t hert o gui l t or t o puni s hm ent , i rr es pect i ve of the good fa i t h or ba d fa i t h o f

t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . ” 3 7 3 U. S

. a t8 7

. Th e S u p r e me C our thas o u t l i ned a thr ee- par tt es tt o det erm i ne i f a B r ady vi ol at i on has occurr ed: “‘ T he evi dence ati s s ue mustbe favor abl e t o t he ac cus ed, ei t herbeca us e i ti s excul pat ory , or because i ti s i m peac hi ng; thatevi dence m us thave be en s uppr es s ed byt he St at e, ei t herw i l l ful l y o r in advert ent l y ; and32 pr ej udi ce musthave ens ued. ’ ” B anks v. D r etke , 540 U

. S. 668, 691 ( 2004) ( quot i ng Str i cklerv. G r eene , 527 U

. S. 263, 281- 82 (1 9 9 9 )); se e L a m b e r t v . B la c kw e ll , 3 8 7 F

. 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 5 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ).
B ecause L ew i s’ s B r ady cl ai m w as adj udi cat ed on t he m er i t s i n s t at e courtdur i ng his P C R A pr ocee di ngs , w e r evi ew i tundert he defe r ent i al s t andar d s et for t h i n § 2254( d)

. I n doi ng so , w e c an n o t con clud e tha t th e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on “i nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” of B r ady or “w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s . ” The P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p r e m e C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e e v id e n c e d id nots uppor tL ew i s ’ s cl ai m beca us e the bus t i cket w oul d nothave corr obor at ed hi s al i bi defe ns e and the t i cketw as nots ei zed by t he p o li ce. I tnot ed thatL ew i s t es t i fi ed “thathe t ook a T rail w ay s b u s to Sa n D iego an d a G reyh o u n d b u s fo r th e re turn t r i p t o P h il adel phi a” a nd t hatD et ect i ve K ane t es t i fi ed “thathe onl y r ec a l l e d s e e i n g a Gr e yh o u n d t i c k e ti n t h e b r i e f c a s e a nd s p e c if ic a lly re c a lle d s e e in g th e G re yh o u n d lo g o o n th e tic k e t.” L ew is I I, 7 4 3 A .2 d a t 9 1 0 -1 1 . M o re o v e r, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p rem e C o u rto b s e rv ed that, ac co rdin g to D etec ti v e K an e’s t es t i m ony , t he G r eyhound t i cket“di d notcon tai n any i nform at i on r egar di ng dat e of tr avel orthe poi ntof or i gi n of the tra v e l,” a n d th a t “[ t]h e tick e t, alo n g w ith th e b rie f c a s e a n d its ot hercont ent s , w as t r ansp o rt ed w i t h [Lew i s ] t o pr i s on on the dayof hi s arr es t and l at er turned over t o [Lew i s ’ s ] fi ancé e. ” I d. a t 9 1 1

. C o n seq u en tl y , the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt concl uded that“[t ] her e ca n be no B r ady vi ol at i on w her e the p ro se c u tio n d id n o t h a v e c u sto d yo f th e tick e t an d w h e re it w oul d not have pr ovi ded excul pat oryevi dence

. ” I d. A l t hough L ew i s chal l enges D et ect i ve K ane’ s cr edi bi l i t y , he has notL ew i s i s notent i t l ed t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng on ei t her 11 his i neff ec tiv e assi st ance a tt he g uil tph ase cl ai m or hi s B r ady cl ai m becau se he fail ed to dev el op the fa c tu al bases for these c la im s in h is s ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . See § 2254(e)(2). M o reo v er, ev en if § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2) did no t p roh ibit a n e v iden ti ary hear i ng on t hes e cl ai m s , w e w oul d s t i l l concl ude thata hea r i ng w o u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se L e w is w o u ld n o t b e a b le to es t abl i s h t he fa ct s neede d t o demon str ate t hatr el i ef s houl d be g ra n te d o n e ith e r c la im

. See Sc hr i r o v. Landri gan , 55 0 U. S. 4 6 5 , 4 7 4 (20 0 7 ) (“In d ec iding w h ethe r t o g ra n t an e v iden ti ary hear i ng, a fe der al cour tm us tcons i derw hether su ch a hea r i ng coul d enabl e an appl i cant t o pr ove t he pet i t i on’ s factual al l egat i ons , w hi ch, i f true, w oul d ent i t l e the appl i cant t o fede r al h ab ea s reli ef

. ”). 33 pr offe r ed cl earand convi nci n g evi dence t o over come t he p resu m p ti o n o f c o rrectne ss tha t at tach es to the s tat e c o u rt ’s f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s . See § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 )

. F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , we m us tr ej ectL ew i s ’ s ar gum ent s and conclu d e tha the i s not e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f

o n t h e b a s i s o f

th i s c l a i m. 11

D . I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel a t th e P e n a lty P h a se C la im
I n i t s cr os s - appea l , the C om m onw eal t h ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n gr ant i ng L ew i s s ent enci ng r el i ef bas ed on hi s cl ai m t hathi s couns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance att he penal t yphas e of hi s t r i al byfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e and pr es ent m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. T he C om m onw eal t h ar gues thatthe D istric t C o u rt f

a iled to a f

f o rd d e f e re n c e to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia34 Supr eme C o u rt ’s r eas onabl e fa ctual fi ndi ngs , i ns t ead s ubs t i tut i ng i t s ow n vi ew of the evi dence , and thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt f a iled to a p p lyth e p re su m p tio n th a t co u n se l p e rf o rm e d in a professi on al l yreas on able m ann er. T he C om m o n w eal t h als o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t i m pr oper l y eval uat ed the pr ej udi ce pr ong of thi s cl ai m undera de no v o st andar d of r evi ew r ather t han app l y i ng A E D P A ’s defe rent i al st and ard. W e w i l l add res s eac h of thes e ar gum ent s i n turn. 1. D e f e r e nc e t o St at e C our t Fac t ualD e t e r m i nat i ons
L ew i s fi r s t chal l enged hi s couns el ’ s eff ect i venes s att he penal t yphas e of hi s t r i al dur i ng hi s PC R A pr ocee di ngs . T he PC R A cour tdeni ed r el i ef on thi s cl ai m and, on appea l fr om that deci s i on, t he Penns y l vani a S upr eme C our taddr es s ed and re je c te d th e c la im o n its m e ri ts

. S ee L ew is I I, 743 A

. 2d at909- 10. T her efor e, under t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he rol e of a fede r al habea s cour ti s to revi ew t he s t at e court ’ s di s pos i t i on thr ough t he l ens of § 2254. A l t hough the D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed a s m u ch w h en itstat ed that “the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt re a c h e d th e m e rits o f

th is c laim ” a n d it w a s th u s o b lig a ted to “appl y A E D PA ’ s defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , ” L e w is , 2006 W L 2338409, at *5 n. 6, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnonethel es s w enton t o det erm i ne the fa ct s fori t s el f and, i n doi ng s o, fai l ed t o gi ve appr opr i at e def

er ence t o t he s t at e court ’ s deci s i on.
I n L ew is I

I, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned t hat the rec o r d di d nots uppor tL ew i s ’ s cl ai m t hathe s uffe r ed fr om s er i ous m ent al i l l nes s and br ai n damage. 743 A

. 2d at909. T he Penns y l v an i a Supr eme C our tpr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng a n a l y s i s o f

t h i s c l a i m:35 “I n hi s PC R A p et i t i on, appel l antcont ended that h is trial c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to i nves t i gat e, di s cover and pre s entevi dence atthe pen al t yphas e of a ppel l ant ’ s tr i al thatappel l ant wa s me n t a l l yi l l

. I n s u p p o r to f th i s c l a i m, app el l ant off

ered affidavi t s from a psy chiatri st w ho e x a mi n e d h i m ne a r l yf i f t e e n y e a r s a f

t e rt he m u rd e r a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t h e su f f e re d f ro m b ra in damage and ment al i l l nes s atthe t i m e of the m ur derand fr om fami l ym ember s cl ai m i ng that appe ll antw as ‘ di ffe r ent ’ as a chi l d and thathe su ff ere d ab u se a t th e h an d s o f h is fathe r. N egat i ng appel l ant ’ s cl ai m , how ever , i s t he pr e s e n t e n c i n g me n t al heal t h eval uat i on conduct ed on A ugus t18, 1983, l es s t han one y ea r aft ert he m ur der , in w hi ch the eva l uat orfound that appel l ant di d not m ani fes t any m aj o r m ent al i l l nes s t hat coul d be a fac t or i n t he di s pos i t i on of hi s cas e and thatappel l ant appea r ed t o be compet entfors ent enci ng. A p p e l l ant’ s cl ai m that he suffers fr om brain d a m a g e o r se rio u s m e n tal i ll n e ss is a lso sim p ly nots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. A ppel lant pl ay ed a veryact i ve r ol e i n hi s t r i al and i n pr e- t r i al pr ocee di ngs . A t a confe r ence befor e the courton M ay 1 9 , 1 9 8 3 , a t w h ich a p p ell an t’ s t h e n - a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l s o u g h t l e a v e t o wi t h d r a w, appe ll ant s t at ed thathe w as ‘ l egal l yas tut e and l e g a l l yc o mpe t e n tt o r e p r e s e nt ’ h i ms e l f

. N. T. 5 / 1 9 / 8 3 a t6

. Th r o u g h o u tth e c o n f e r e n c e , he36 sp o k e i n a co h ere n t an d co g en t m an n er, di s pl ay i ng a good com m and of l anguage and vocabul aryas w el l as know l edge of t he l egal p ro c e s s a n d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts

. I d. at6- 16. Fur t her , appel l antt es t i fi ed at a s uppr es s i on heari ng on Ju ly 27 , 19 83 , w here he als o demonstr at ed cl ar i t y of t houghtand i nt el l i gence . N

. T

. 7/ 27/ 83 at182- 220. A ppel l antal s o t es t i fi ed at length athi s tr i al r egar di ng hi s al i bi defe ns e, once a g a i n s h o wi n g n o s i g n s o f b r a i n d a ma g e or m ent al i l l nes s butr atherappea r i ng i nt el l i gentand w el l

- s poken. N

. T

. 8/ 10/ 83 at1054- 1113. Be c a u s e a p p e l l a n tga ve n o i n d i c a t i o n a tth e t i me of hi s t r i al t hat he s uffe r ed fr om br ai n damage or s er i o u s m ent al i l l nes s , hi s t r i al couns el and s ubs equent ap p el l at e couns el cannot be i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e, di s coverand pr es entevi dence of s uch br ai n damage orm ent al illn e s s .”
I d. at 90 9 -10 (fo o tno te o m itted ). A s this pa ssag e m ak es c lear, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C ourteval uat ed the evi dence that L ewi s p r e s e n t e d i n s u p p o r to f h i s c l a i m t h a tc o u n s e l was i neff ecti ve att he pena l t yphas e of tr i al and compar ed i tt o the r ecor d as a w hol e i n t he cour s e of de t erm i ni ng t hatL ew i s had notdemonstr at ed thatatthe t i m e of hi s tr i al he w as s uffe r i ng fro m b rai n damage orm ent al i l l nes s . H ow ever , w hen the D i s t r i ctC our tanal y zed thi s cl ai m , i ts t at ed that“[t ] he evi dence th a t [ L e w is] h a s p re se n ted , b o th in th e P C R A c o u rts a n d in h is h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g s , r e v e a l s th a th e d o e s i n f a c ts u f f e rf r o m a h o st o f m e n tal h e a lth iss u e s, m a n yo f w h ich m a yb e a ttribu tab le37 t o hi s dee p lyt r oubl ed fa m i l ybackgr ound. ” L e w is , 2 0 0 6 WL 2338409, at*6. T he D i s t r i ctC our t rea ched t hi s concl us i on w i t hout m ent i oni ng t he P enns y l vani a S upr eme C our t ’ s fi ndi ng t o t h e c o n t r a r y. U n d e r A E D P A , fa c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s m a d e b ysta te cour t s – s uch as t he one a ti s s ue her e – ar e ent i t l ed t o defe r ence :

“ [ A ] d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f

a f a c tu a l i s s u e m a d e b y a St at e courts hal l be pr es um ed t o be corr ect

. T he appli ca n ts hal l have the bur den of r ebut t i ng t he pr e s u mpt i o n o f

c o r r e c t n e s s b yc l e a ra nd c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e .”A ddi t i onal l y , under§ 2254( d) ( 2) , r el ie f ca nnotbe 12 g ra n ted o n a c lai m th a t w a s a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits in sta te cour t pr ocee di ngs unl es s t he adj udi cat i on “r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g .” W e have pr evi ous l yexpl ai ned that“‘ t he l an g u ag e of § 2254( d) ( 2) and § 2254( e) ( 1) i m pl i es an i m por t antdi s t i nct i on: § 2254( d) ( 2) ’ s r eas onabl eness det erm i nat i on turns on a cons i der at i on of the t ot al it y of the ‘ evi dence pr es ent ed i n the st at e-courtproceed i ng , ’ w hil e § 2 2 5 4(e) (1) con t em plat es a chall eng e t o the st at e cou rt ’s i nd i vidual factual det erm i nati on s, i ncl udi ng a cha l l enge ba s ed w hol l yo r i n par ton evi dence out s i de t he s t at e t r i al r ecor d. ’ ” T aylor v. H

orn , 504 F. 3d at429 ( quot i ng L am bert , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t 2 3 5 ). H e re , th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t g ra n t re lief

to L e w is o n th e b a sis th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n re su lted in a n u n re a so n a b le det erm i nat i on of t he fact s but r ather t hatthe dec i s i on amount ed t o a n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f f e d e r a l l a w t o t h e f

a c t s of L e w is ’s c a s e . See L e w is , 2006 W L 2338409, at*11. 38 § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 ). T h is p re su m p tio n o f c o rre c tn e ss a p p lies to 12 factual det erm i nati on s of bo t h st at e tri al and app el l at e cou rt s. See R o lan v. V

aughn , 4 4 5 F

. 3 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); D uncan , 256 F. 3d at196. I m pl i ci tfac tual fi ndi ngs ar e ent i t l ed to § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 )’ s p re s u m p tio n o f c o rr e c tn e s s a s w e ll. C a m p b e ll v. V aughn , 2 0 9 F

. 3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 5

- 8 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, w hi l e § 2254 does notcondi t i on defe r ence t o s t at e courtfac tual f in d in g s o n w h e th e r t h e s ta te c o u rt h e ld a h e a ri n g , Fahy , 516 F. 3d at 182, t he proc edur es us ed i n the s t at e court ’ s adj udi cat i on of a cl ai m m ay i m pact w hether the pet i t i oner has r ebut t ed the39 p re s u m p tio n o f

c o rr e c tn e s s , s ee L am bert , 387 F. 3d at239. T hus “s t at e fac t

- fi ndi ng pr ocedur es m ay be r el evant w hen d ec idi ng w hether

. . . a pet i t i onerhas adequa t el yr ebut t ed a f act , butthe pr ocedur es ar e notr el evanti n as s es s i ng w het h er de fer ence appl i es t o t hos e fa ct s . ” R olan , 445 F. 3d at679.
I n l i ghtof thi s s t andard , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as notfr ee t o det erm i ne anew t he under l y i ng fac t s of t hi s cl ai m ; r ather , the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt’s f a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n th a t L e w is had notdemonstr at ed thathe s uffe r ed fr om m ent al i l l ness or br ai n damage w as ent i t l ed t o a pre s um pt i on of corr ectnes s and t he bur den w as on L ew i s t o r ebutt hi s pr es um pt i on w i t h cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence

. B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC ourtdi d not add res s w hetherL ew i s r ebu t t ed the presum pti on of co rr ect ness t hatat t ache d t o t he s t at e court ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons , and i ns t ead a r r i ved ati ts o w n i nt erpr et at i on of the fa ct s w i t hout co n d u cti n g an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , w e w il l en g ag e i n a p lena ry re v ie w o f th is is s u e . See Slut z kerv. Johns on , 393 F. 3d 373, 378 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[O ] urr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC ou rt ’ s fac tual f in d in g s is

. . . p len a ry , b e c a u se [ th e D istric t] C o u rt re lied so lely o n th e stat e c o u rtrec o rd, an d d id n o t con d u ct an ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g . ”).
U p o n re v iew o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t L e w is p ro v id e s in s uppor t o f h i s cl ai m thati nform at i on w as avai l abl e t o hi s t r i al c o u n s e l p e r t a i n i n g t o h i s me n t a l i l l n e s s a n d b r a i n d a ma g e , we ca nnotconcl ude thathe has r ebut t ed the pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s t hatat ta ches t o the s t at e court ’ s fac tual d e ter m in a tio n . A s e v e n a b rie f su m m a ryo f

th e m e n tal h e a lth e v a lu a tio n s re v e a ls, th e e v id e n c e th a t L e w is re lies o n to estab li sh h is m en tal ill n ess a n d b rain d am ag e is i n large p art40 contr adi ct or y . Forexampl e, i n a ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on conduct e d s h o r t l ya f

t e rt r i a l i n Aug u s t1 9 8 3 , Dr

. Ca mi el r epor t ed thatL ew i s w as m or e i n t el l i gentt han pr evi ous t es t i ng had s how n; t hatL ew i s ’ s “though ts pr ogr es s ed i n a norm al as s oci at i ve man n er w i t houtevi dence of an unde r l y i ng t hought d iso rd e r o r ra m b lin g p a ttern o f sp e e c h ” ; an d h e d iag n o se d L e w is as having an A nti soci al P ers on al i t yD i sorder , w i t h h i s grandi ose t hought s cons t i tut i ng a nar ci s s i s t i c componentt o hi s di s or d er. ( A pp. at2162- 66. ) Si mi l a r l y , a p s y chi atr i c eva l uat i on conduct ed byD r . C an als i n 1993 pr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng i nform at i on: L ew i s appea r ed t o be very i nt el l i gent ; “dur i ng the i nt ervi ew he d id n o t sh o w a n ysy m p to m s o f b e in g p sy c h o tic, h e a p p e a re d to be i n good cont actw i t h r eali ty , he w as s om ew hatgr andi os e, admi t t ed t o epi s odes of fe el i ng hi gh w i t ho utthe us e of chem icals and hi s conver s at i on w as w el l or gani zed” ; he had Pol y s ubs t ance A b us e Sever e, E xpl os i ve D i s or der , A nt i s oci al Per s onal i t yD i so rder , Par anoi d Per s onal i t yD i s or der , and H ypom ani c Per s onal i t yD i s or der ; and L ew i s w as nots uffe r i ng f ro m a n ym a

jo r m e n ta l illn e s s . (A p p . a t 2 1 5 6 -6 1 .)
In c o n tr ast, a psy ch o log ical ev alua ti o n co n d u cted b yD r. W el l m an i n 1984 r evea l ed thattest s pl ace d L ew i s ’ s I Q at77, c o nsi dered b orderl i ne m ental l yret arded; m enti on ed b rai n damage and a he ad i nj uryi nfl i ct ed by hi s father ; and des cr i bed L e w is ’s s e lf

-i m a g e a s “ in f

la te d to th e p o in t o f

m ild g ra n d io s ity,” not i ng t hatt hos e per s ons w i th thi s pr o fil e type oft en have par anoi d m ent al act i vi t yand di s or der ed thi nki ng. (A p p. at 2 1 6 8 -6 9 .) L ik e w ise , L e w is w a s e v a lu a ted in 1 9 9 7 b ya f o re n sic p sy ch o log ist , D r. B erlan d , w h o o b serv ed that a test pu t L ew is’ s I Q at86, t he bot t om of the ave r age r ange; t es t i ng i ndi cat ed a se rio u s p sy c h o tic d istu rb a n c e in v o lv in g d e lu sio n a l p a ra n o id41 t hi nki n g, ps y chot i c mood di s turbance , and per ceptual dis turbanc e i ncludi ng hall ucinat i on s; t est i ng su g gest ed d i ffu se orw i des pr ead da m age t o L ew i s ’ s ce r ebr al cort ex, w hi ch may have be en conge ni t al ; and Lew i s s uffe r ed fr om b rai n damage a n d c h ro n ic , s e ri o u s , m e n ta l illn e s s . (A p p . a t 2 1 7 1 -7 2 , 2 1 8 6 .) I n combi nat i on, t hi s ev i d ence i s farfr om concl us i ve w i t h r es pect to est abli shi ng t hat L ew i s suffers from m ental i l l ness or b ra in damage.
In a d d it ion to the se p rof

essio n a l e v a lu a tio n s , L e w is o f fe rs d ecl ar at i ons fr om vari o u s fa m il ym em b ers a n d frien d s in su p p o rt of hi s cl ai m t hatevi dence of hi s m ent al i l l nes s and br ai n damage w as avai l abl e t o hi s t r i al couns el

. For exampl e, L ew i s ’ s m other s t at ed thats he dr ank turpent i ne w hi l e pre gnant w i t h L ew i s and th a t h e h a d su f

f e re d a h e a d in

ju rya s a y o u n g b o yw h e n h is f a th e r s la m m e d L e w is ’s h e a d in to th e b a th tu b . (A p p . 1 9 6 8 -7 0 .) B utL ew i s hi m s el f has neveracknow l edged an y abuse – he in f o rm e d D r. C a n a ls th a t h e w a s ra ise d b y “ v e ryg o o d ” p a re n ts w ho w er e “de centl aw - abi di ng ci t i zens ” and thathe w as never abus ed (A p p . 2156) – norhas he s ubm i t t ed r epor t s fr om any d o ctors sp ec ial izi n g in n e u rolo g ical i ssu es. O ther e v iden ti ary pr obl ems i ncl ude t hat L ew i s has not s ubm i t t ed medi cal r ecor ds of ps y chi atr i c tr eatm entfr om befor e or dur i ng hi s i ncar cer at i on, he has nots ubm i t t ed anys chool r ecor ds s how i ng l earni ng or e m o tio n a l p ro b lem s, a n d h e h a s n o t ad d re ss e d th e p o ss ib ili ty th a t h is a lleg e d ly d e lu sio n a l b e h a v io r w a s a c tu a llyc a u se d b yh is heavydrug us e. Fur t her underm i ni ng L ew i s ’ s att empt t o s how that he s uffe r s fr om m ent al i l l nes s and br ai n damage i s t he aff i r m at i ve evi dence of hi s act i ve and e ngaged c onductattr i al and dur i ng pr e- t r i al hear i ngs . ( A pp. at739- 772. ) T her efor e, at bes t , t he evi dence of r ecor d w it h r es pectt o L ew i s ’ s m ent al42 heal t h and br ai n damage i s i n confl i ct and w e ca nnotconcl ude t hatL ew i s r ebut t ed, w i t h cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , the stat e c o u rt ’ s fac tu al de term ination that the re co rd d id n o t sup p o rt hi s c l a i m o f me n t a l i l l n e s s o r b r a i n d a ma g e . M o r e o v e r , t he D istric t C o u rt’s m ista k e in d isre g a rd in g th e P e n n sylv a n ia S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s f

a c tu a l d e t e r mi n a t i o n s i n f a v o ro f i t s o wn i nfec t ed the r em ai nd er of i t s anal y si s. 2. R eas onabl enes s of

C ounsel ’ s P erf

orm ance
B as ed on i t s ow n det erm i nat i on of the under l y i ng fac t s of t hi s cl ai m , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that“tr i al couns el fai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence w hat s oever i n m i t i gat i on [w hi ch] l eads i nexor abl yt o t he conc l us i on thathe fa i l ed t o m ake a ny r eas onabl e ef

for tt o uncovers uch evi dence , ” and “ t her e can be n o re a s o n , stra teg ic o r o th e rw ise f o r tria l co u n se l’s f

a ilu re to i nves t i gat e and pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence

. ” L e w is , 2 0 0 6 WL 2338409, at *11. T hus t he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded t hatthe P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me Co u r tu n r e a s o n a b l ya p p l i e d th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s pr ece dent s i n S tr i c k l a ndand T e r r y Wi l l i a ms . I

d. H ow ever , in rea ch ing thes e c o n clus ion s, the D istri ct C o urtfai l ed t o appl yt he pr es um pt i on that L ew i s ’ s couns el per form ed i n a p rof essio n all yrea so n ab le m an n er.
T o r ei t er at e, i n or dert o es t abl i s h defi ci entper form ance , a “de fenda ntm us ts how t hat couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve st andar d of re as onabl enes s . ” Str i ckland , 46 6 U. S. a t 6 8 8

. T h e c o u rts, in tu rn , m u st m a k e “ e v e rye f f o rt . . . to el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng eff ect s of hi nd sigh t, t o r econs t ructt he c irc u m sta n c e s o f

c o u n se l’s c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t, an d to e v a lu a te t he conduc t fr om couns el ’ s per s pect i ve atthe t i m e. ” I d. at689.43 T her efore, i n eval uat i ng t he fi r s tpr ong of the Str i ckland tes t, cour t s “musti ndul ge a s t r ong pr es um pt i on t hatcouns el ’s conductfal l s w i t hi n t he w i de ran g e o f r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t a n c e ; th a ti s , th e defe ndantm us tover come t he pr es um pt i on t hat , undert he ci r cumst ance s , t he cha ll enged a ct i on ‘ m i ghtbe cons i der ed s ound t r i al s t r at egy . ’ ” I d. T he pr es um pt i on can be r ebut t ed bys how i ng “thatthe conduc t w as not , i n fac t , par tof a s t r at egyorbys how i ng t hatthe s t r at egyempl oy ed w as uns ound. ” Thom as v. V ar ner , 4 2 8 F

. 3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 9 -5 0 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d )

. C o n s e q u e n t l y,

“ [ i]n c a se s in w h ich th e re c o rd d o e s n o t ex p licitly di s cl os e tr i al counse l ’ s actual s t r at egyorl ack there o f (e ith er d u e t o lack o f d il igen ce o n the p art of the pet i t i onerordue t o t he unava il ab il ityof couns el ) , t he pr es um pt i on m ayo n ly be r ebut t ed t hr ough a s how i ng t hat no s ound s t r at egypos i t ed byt he C o m m onw eal t h coul d have s uppor t ed the c o n d u c t.”
I d. at 500 ( footnot e om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng Y arbo roug h v. G entr

y , 540 U

. S. 1, 8 ( 2003) , i n w hi ch t he S upr eme C our t expl ai ned thatthe pr es um pt ion of

r eas onabl enes s “has part i cul arfor ce w her e a pet i t i onerbas es hi s i neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance cl ai m s ol el yon t he t r i al r ecor d, cr eat i ng a s i tuat ion i n w hi ch a c our tm ayhave no w ayof know i ng w hethera s eemi ngl yunu su al o rm i s gui ded act i on bycouns el h ad a sound s t r at egi c mot i ve” ( i nt ernalI n con tr ast , w her e the governm ent“ca n s how that 13 couns el actual l ypur s ued an i nf or m ed s tr a t e g y( o n e d e c i ded upon a f te r a th o ro u g h in v e s tig a tio n o f th e re le v a n t la w a n d f a c ts ),” V ar ner , 428 F. 3d at 500, t he i ni t i al pr es um pt i on t hat counse l p e rf o rm e d re a s o n a b ly b e c o m e s “ v ir tu a lly u n c h a lle n g e a b le ,” Str i ckland , 466 U

. S. at690. 44 quot at i on m arks om it te d) )

. N onethel es s , even i f the 13 p resu m p ti o n is r eb u tt ed , a c o u rtm u st sti ll “‘d eterm ine w h ethe r, i n l ightof

al lthe ci r cum s tances , t he i dent i fi ed act s orom i s s i ons [ o f c o u n se l] w e re o u tsid e th e w id e ra n g e o f p ro f e ss io n a lly compet entas s i s t ance . ’ ” Jaco bs v. H orn , 395 F. 3d 92, 106 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U

. S

. at 69 0 ).
I n hi s PC R A pr ocee di ngs , L ew i s fr amed hi s i neff ect i ve assistan ce arg u m en t as a c h all en g e to h is tri al co u n sel’s fa il u re to c o n d u c t an y“ in v e stig a ti o n g e a re d to w a rd th e p e n a lty hear i ng ” and t o pr es ent“i nform at i on r egar di ng [hi s ] m ent al i l l ness. ” The D i s t r i ctC our tw as per s uaded thatt her e w as “no re a so n , stra te g ic o r o th e rw ise f o r tria l co u n se l’s f

a ilu re to i nves t i gat e and pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence

. ” L e w is , 2 0 0 6 WL 2338409, at*11. H ow ever , as w e hav e alre adydi s cus s ed, the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t a p p lyth e p re su m p tio n o f c o rre c tn e ss to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t th e r e c o rd d id not s uppo r tLe wi s ’ s c l a i m t h a t , a tth e t i me o f tr i a l , h e s u f

f e r ed fro m m en tal il lnes s o r b rain d am ag e. T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s t at ementt hat“no r eas on, s t r at egi c o r o therw i s e” e xi s t ed for t r i al couns el ’ s “fa i l ur e t o . . . pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi den ce ” of L e wi s ’ s “ me n t a l h e a l t h i s s u e s ” i s i n c o r r e c tf o ra tl e a s ttwo reas on s.O f cour s e, t hi s i s di ffe r entthan say i ng t hats uch 14 evi dence exi s t ed but couns el w as m er el y unaw ar e of i torfai l ed to d isco v er it

. W e d iscu ss the rea so n ab lene ss o f tri al co u n sel’s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e s e p a r a t e l y. 45 F irst, if e v id e n c e o f

L e w is’s m e n tal illn e ss a n d b ra in damage w as l acki ng beca us e he di d not i n fac ts uffe rfr om ei t her c o n d iti o n – a s th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt f o u n d – it cannotbe s ai d t hat“no r eas on” exi sted forfai l i ng t o pr es ent su c h e v id e n c e . A v a lid re a s o n f o r n o t p re se n tin g e v id e n c e is t hati tdoes notexi s t

. Second, even i f t he st at e court ’ s fac tual 14 det erm i nat i on t hatL ew is h ad not es t abl i s hed thathe w as s u f f e r i n g f r o m me n t a l i l l n e s s o r b r a i n d a ma g e c o u l d be di s r egar ded, i tw as err orforthe D i s t r i ct C our t not t o empl oythe p re su m p tio n th a t L e w is’s c o u n se l ac ted in a p ro f e ss io n a lly r eas onabl e manner . I ns t ead of appl y i ng thi s pr es um pt i on, t he D istric t C o u rt ju m p e d to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t c o u n se l’s f a ilu re to pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence w as unr eas onabl e. H ow ever , under o u r ca selaw , w h ere , as h ere , the re co rd is sil en t as t o co u n sel’s s t r at egyorl ack ther eof, t he def endantbear s the b u r den of p ro v in g th a t n o so u n d stra teg yo f f e re d b yth e C o m m o n w e a lth w o u ld h a v e s u p p o rt e d th e c o n d u c t. See Varne r , 428 F. 3d at500. Be c a u s e t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i d n o t e n g a g e i n t h i s a n a l y s i s , we cons i deri tbes tnott o do s o i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance atthi s t i m e.
I n addi t i on t o L ew i s ’ s cl ai m t hathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve for fai l i ng t o pres ent evidence of hi s m ental illne ss and br ai n damage, L ew is a l s o pr emi s ed hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m on gr ounds t hat hi s couns el fai l ed to conduct a n yin v e stig a tio n in p re p a ra tio n f o r th e p e n a lty p h a se o f h is tria l.46 W h i l e c o u n s e l ’ s f

a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t mi t i g a t i n g e v i d e nce of L ew i s ’ s m ent al heal t h m ay have come w i t hi n the w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance – ei t herbeca us e the evi dence t o s uppor t t hi s cl ai m di d notexi s tora s ound s t r at egys uppor t ed th e d e c isio n n o t to p re se n t th e e v id e n c e

– w e m u s t s till det erm i ne w h ethercouns el ’ s eff or t s t o i nves t i gat e any m i t i gat i ng evi dence w ere reas onabl e. I n Str i ckland , t he Supr eme C our ti ns t ruct ed that“counsel has a dutyt o m ake r eas onabl e i nves t i gat i ons ort o m ake a r eas onabl e deci s i on that m akes par t i cul ari nves t i gat i ons unnece s s ary , ” and ther ef or e,

“ [ i] n a n yin e f

f e c tiv e n e ss c a se , a p a rticu lar d e c isio n n o t to in v e s ti g a te m u st b e d ire c tlya ss e ss e d f o r re a so n a b len e ss in a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s, a p p ly in g a h e a v ym e a su re o f d e f e re n c e to co u n sel’s j u d g m en ts. ” 4 6 6 U

. S

. at 69 1

. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt fu rth er e x p lai n ed that “w h at i n v esti g ati o n d ec isi o n s are r eas onabl e depe nds cr i t i cal l yo n ” i nform at i on s uppl i ed bythe defe ndant , not i ng t hat“w hen a defe ndanthas gi ven couns el r eas on t o bel i eve thatpur s ui ng cert ai n i nves t i gat i ons w oul d be frui t l e ss o r even h arm ful, cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o p ursue tho se i nves t i gat i ons m aynot l at er be chal l enged as unr eas onabl e. ” I d. T o t hi s end, “i nqui r yi nt o couns el ’ s conver s at i o n s w ith the d ef en d an t m ayb e c ri ti ca l t o a p rop er a sses sm en t of co u n sel’s i nves t i gat i on deci s i ons , j u st a s itm aybe cr i t i cal t o a pr oper as s es s m entof couns el ’ s ot herl i t i gat i on deci s i ons . ” I d.
A ccor di ngl y , befor e w e ca n as s es s the r eas onabl enes s of couns el ’ s inv est i gat or yeff or t s , w e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne the natur e and ext ent of t he i nves t i gat i on t hat t ook pl ace as w el l as t he natur e and e xt entof the comm uni cat i ons that occurr ed betw een L ew i s and hi s couns el on t hi s i s s ue. T hi s t as k i s m ade di f f i c u l tb yt h e f

a c tth a tLe wi s ’ s t r i a l c o u n s e l i s d e c e a s e d,47 havi ng di ed s hor t l yaft ert he conc l us i on of Lew i s ’ s t r i al , and L ew i s hi m s el f has notoffe r ed anys t at ement s on hi s ow n behal f. O n t hi s r ecor d, L ew i s has notes t abl i s hed thathi s couns el i n fac t fai l ed t o under t ake a nyi nves t i gat ion of hi s fami l ybackgr ound o r f a iled to c o n su lt w ith h im re g a rd in g th e d e c is io n to i nves t i g a t e . Al th o u gh L ew i s offe r s decl ar at i ons fr om hi s m other and s i bl i ngs t hatt hey w ere notcont act ed byL ew i s ’ s tr i al co u n sel, as th e C o m m o n w ea lth p o ints ou t, thes e w ere u n sw o rn s t at ement s nott es t ed bythe adve r s arym ethod, and w er e off er ed, i n l ar g e p ar t , byw i t nes s es w ho t es t i fi ed att r i al i n s uppor tof L ew i s ’ s al i bi defe ns e and w hos e t es t i m ony t he j urydi s cr edi t ed. T hi s i s h ar dl ya s uffi ci entbas i s upon w hi ch t o concl ude that L ew i s ’ s c o u n s e l c o n d u c t e dn o b a c k gr ound i nves t i gat i on and that couns el ’ s conductw as notr eas onab le underal l of the ci r cumst ance s . M or eover , w e ar e unw i l l i ng t o concl ude, as t he D istric t C o u rt d id , tha t “[ t]h e f a c t th a t trial c o u n se l f

a iled to p re se n t a n y e v id e n c e w h a tso e v e r in m iti g a tio n lea d s in e x o ra b ly to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t h e f a iled to m a k e a n y re a so n a b le e f f o rt to uncovers uch evi dence

. ” L e w is , 2006 W L 2338409, at *11. T he r ecor d on t hi s i s s ue is t oo undevel oped forus t o concl ude that L ew i s ’ s couns el fai l ed t o conductanybackgr ound i nves t i gat i on a n d d id n o t ac t in a p ro f e ss io n a llyre a so n a b le m a n n e r in th is re g a rd

. C

f

. T ho m as v. H

orn , 5 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 ( n o tin g th a t it w oul d be “pr ematur e” t o deci de i f couns el ’ s per form ance w as d e f icie n t w ith o u t f

irst c o n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g to det erm i ne “the ext ent , i f any , of [the defe ndant ’ s ] couns el ’ s pr es e n te n c in g in v e s tig a tiv e e f f o rt s to o b ta in m itig a tin g e v id e n c e ,” not w i t hs t andi ng t he fa ctthatthe defen d an t ’ s r el at i ve pr ovi ded a s i gned s t at ementt hats he h ad n otbeen c ont act ed aboutt he defe ndant ’ s l i fe a nd m ent al heal t h and ther e w as no aff i r m at i ve e v id e n c e o f

a n in v e stig a tio n ); M

ars hal lv. Hendr i cks , 307 F. 3d48 3 6 , 1 0 6 ( 3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (re m a n d in g to th e d istric t co u rt to conductan evi dent i aryhear i ng befor e r eeva l uat i ng w hether co u n sel’s pe rfo rm an ce w as d ef ic i entw her e the re w as “ n o rec o rd befor e us as t o w hatpr epar at i on or i nves t i gat i on, i f any , w as p erf o rm ed b yco u n sel i n an ti cipa ti o n o f th e p en altyp h ase ”).
In su m , tha t c o u n se l d id n o t p re se n t ev id e n c e re latin g to L ew i s ’ s m ent al heal t h orhi s fami l ybackgr ound does notcompel t he conc l us i on t hatcouns el fai l ed t o conductanyi nves t i gat i on i nt o mi t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e , a s t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t r e a s o n e d, and there b yfa il ed to ac t i n a p rof essio n all yrea so n ab le m an n er. W hen def

er ence i s aff

or ded t o the s t at e court ’ s under l y i ng fac tual det erm i nat ions and w hen the pr es um pt i on t hatcouns el per form ed ade quat el yi s gi ven ef fec t , w e ca nnotconcl ude that t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me Co u r tu n r e a s o n a b l ya p p l i e d S u p r e me C o u rt p re c e d e n t in d e n ying re lief to L e w is o n th e b a sis o f h is i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m. 3. P rej udi ce R es ul t i ng F rom D ef i ci ent P erf

orm ance
B eca us e w e di s agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s of t h e p er form ance pr ong of Str i ckland , and thi s err oral one r equi res u s t o r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof r el i ef f r om L ew i s ’ s s ent ence , w e do notneed t o pr ovi de an e xhaus t i ve a n a ly sis o f

th e p re ju d ice p ro n g a t th is tim e ; h o w e v e r, w e w ill m ak e t w o obs ervat i ons befor e movi ng on. Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ct C our t i ncorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatde novo r evi ew w as ap p rop ri ate. A s w e h av e p rev iou sly n o ted, “ the S u p rem e C o u rt c lea rlyh e ld th a t th e § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) sta n d a rd s a p p lyw h e n a sta te s upr eme cour t r ej ect s a cl ai m w i t houtgi vi ng anyi ndi cat i on of how i tr eac hed i t s deci s i on. ” C hadw i ck v. Ja n ecka , 312 F. 3d49 5 9 7 , 6 0 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (in te rn al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T hus , fede r al habea s court s m us tdi s t i ngui s h betw een t he deni al of a c l ai m w i t houtexpl anat i on and the fa i l ur e t o adj udi cat e a cl ai m o n it s m er i t s ; onl yt he form ert r i gger s t he appl i cat i on of A E D PA ’ s defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew . H er e, t he Penns y l vani a Sup rem e C our t ’ s deci s i on can be i nt erpr et ed as co n clud ing that L ew is w as n o t prejud iced b yh is co u n sel’s conductj us tas eas i l y as i t can be i nt erpr et ed as concl udi ng t hat hi s couns el ’ s conductw as notunr eas onabl e. T h ere fo r e, the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by not appl y i ng § 2254( d) t o t hi s as pectof Le wi s ’ s i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m. Second, i f i tbecomes nece s s aryt o r econs i derw hether L ew is w a s p rejud iced b yan yd ef ici en cies in h is co u n sel’s per form ance , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l need t o engage i n a m eani ngful r ew ei ghi ng of the aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng e v id e n c e in o rd e r t o d e c id e th is is s u e . See Str i ckland , 46 6 U. S. a t 6 9 5 (“ [ T ]h e q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat , abs entthe err or s , the sent ence r . . . w oul d have concl ud ed tha tt he bal ance of aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng c irc u m sta n c e s d id n o t w a rra n t d e a th .”); see al so M a rs h a ll , 307 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 (“ G iv e n th e u n a n im ity re q u ire m e n t, th e ‘re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yof a di ffe r entout come’ w ou ld mean thatonl yone j ur orneed w ei gh t he fa ct or s di ffe r ent l yand fi nd that the ag g rav ati n g fa ctor d id n o t o u tw eigh ” the m it igating fa ctors). A l s o r el evantt o t he pr ej udi ce a n aly sis i s t he i s s ue of w hether L ew i s w oul d have a l l ow ed tr i al couns el t o pr es entdi s par agi ng a n d n e g a tiv e in f

o rm a tio n to sh o w th a t h e w a s m e n tallyill , b ra in damaged, and abus ed, es peci al l yi n l i ght of hi s des i r e t o por t r ay h im se lf a s a p e rso n o f

“ su p e rio r in telle c t” a n d h is a ttem p ts to contr ol t he pr es ent at i on of hi s cas e. ( Supp. A pp. 6- 7, 9, 11- 18;50 T r. 6 /1 6 /8 3 a t 1 2 , 1 4 -1 5 ; A p p . at 7 3 2 -3 5 .) L e w is h a s y e t to pr ovi de anys t at ementthatthe dec i s i on nott o pr es ent b a c k g r o u n d i n f

o r ma t i o n i n mi t i g a t i o n wa s o t h e rth a n h i s o wn c h o ic e . See Sc hr i r o v. Landri gan , 5 5 0 U. S. 4 6 5 , 4 7 8 ( 2007) (address i ng “a si tuati on i n w hich a cl i ent i nter feres w i th couns el ’ s eff

or t s t o pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence t o a s ent enci ng cour t ” and de ferr i ng to the s t at e court ’ s concl us i on t hat p re ju d ice c o u ld n o t b e sh o w n ); T aylor v. H

orn , 504 F. 3d at455 ( r eas oni ng t hat“w hat evercouns el coul d have uncover ed, [the d e f e n d a n t ] w o u l d n o th a v e p e r m i t t e d a n y w i t n e s s e s t o t e s t i f y, an d w as th ere fo re no t prejud iced b yan yinad eq u ac yin co u n sel’s in v e stig a tio n o r d e c isio n n ot t o p res ent m i t ig a tio n e v id e n c e ” ); c f. T ho m as v. H

orn , 570 F. 3d at 123 ( “A tno t i m e di d m yat t orney expl ai n t o m e thatevi dence concerni ng m ychar act ercoul d or sh o u ld b e p r e se n ted f

o r th e ju ry ’s c o n sid e ra tio n a t th e p e n a lty h ea ri n g . ”).
4 . D e v e lo p in g S u p p o r t fo r th is

C l ai m i n an Evi de nt i ar y H e ar i ng N o tw ith sta n d in g o u r c o n c lu sio n s th a t L e w is h a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te th a t h e is e n tit led to se n ten c in g re lief o n h is in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im , w e b e li e v e th a t L e w is s houl d be gr ant ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng t o tr yt o d ev elop t he r ecor d i n s uppor t of hi s cl ai m . Sect i on 2254( e) ( 2) pr ovi des that if a n a p p lica n t “ h a s f

a iled to d e v e lo p th e f

a c tu a l b a sis o f a c laim i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs , the courts hal l nothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on t he cl ai m , ” unl es s one of t he enumer at ed exce pt i ons appl i es . T he foc us of thi s i nqui r yi s on w hethert he defe ndantw as di l i gent i n hi s eff or t s t o pr ovi de the fa ctual bas es f o r h is c la im d u ri n g th e s ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . See Mi chael51 Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 8 U. S. a t 4 3 5 ( “ Di l i g e n c e f o r p u rp o s e s of t he openi ng cl aus e [of

§ 2254( e) ( 2) ] depends upon w hethert he pr i s oner m ade a re as onabl e at t empt , i n l i ghtof the i nform at i on a v a ilab le a t th e tim e , to in v e stig a te a n d p u rsu e c laim s in sta te cou rt

. . . . ”). T hroug h e a c h sta g e of h i s PC R A proceed i ng s, L ew i s cont i nued t o s uppl ementhi s cl ai m w i t h addi t i onal fac tual su p p o rt. W h ile th is pie c e m e a l d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e f a c tu a l b a sis o f a c laim is n o t id e a l, w e c o n c lu d e , o n th e s e f a c ts , tha t it s uffi ces t o m eett he s t andar d s etfor t h i n § 2254( e) ( 2). Th e r e f o r e , we wi l l r e ma n d t o t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t t o c o n d uct an e v id e n tiary he a rin g , w h ich p ro v id e s L e w is w ith th e o p p o rtu n ity t o r ebutt he pr esum pt i on of corr ectnes s t hatappl i es t o t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatL ew i s di d not d e m o n stra te th a t h e su f

f e rs f ro m se rio u s m e n tal illn e ss o r b ra in d am ag e a n d to reb u t th e p resu m p ti o n that h is co u n sel’s per form ance w as pr ofes s i onal l y r eas onabl e by s how i ng t hatno so u n d stra teg yp o site d b yth e C o m m o n w e a lth w o u ld su p p o rt h is couns el ’ s deci s i ons r egar di ng t he i nves t i gat i on and pr es ent at i on of m i t i gat i ng evi dence and thatthe t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s es t abl i s h t hathi s couns el ’ s conductw as u n rea s onabl e. T he b u r d e n i s o n L e wi s t o o v e r c o me t h e s e p r e s u mp t i o n s , wh i c h we e x p e c t w ill b e d if

f icu lt to d o if L e w is c o n tin u e s to re m a in sile n t. A ddi t i onal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l need t o det erm i ne the cr edi bi l i t yof Lew i s ’ s w i t nesses, ra t hert han s i m pl yr el y i ng on uns w or n s t at em ent s , and the C om m onw eal t h w i l l have the o p p o r tu n i t y t o p r e s e n ti t s o w n e v i d e n c e a s w e l l

. I f n e c e s s a r y, a f ter th e re c o rd is m o re f

u llyd e v e lo p e d , the D istric t C o u rt w ill n e e d to re w e ig h th e m iti g a tin g a n d a g g ra v a tin g e v id e n c e in its ent i r etyi n t he cour s e of det erm i ni ng i f Lew i s w as pr ej udi ced by anydefi ci enci es i n hi s couns el ’ s per form ance .52 La s t l y , we n o t e t h a tb o t h t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C o u rt a n d th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d w h e th e r L e w is w a s a b le to e sta b lish h is in e f

f e c tiv e a ss is tan c e c laim b a se d o n h is couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o pr es entavai l abl e evi dence of hi s m ent al h e a lth iss u e s. T h is i s u n d e rsta n d a b le in lig h t o f th e w a yL e w is f r a me d h i s c l a i m a n d h i s e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r to f th e c l a i m. N o n e th e les s, L e w is’s c laim c o u ld a lso b e in terp re ted to encompas s a cha l l enge t o hi s couns el ’s fai l ur e t o pr es ent b a c k g ro u n d in f

o rm a tio n th a t m a yh a v e b e e n in d e p e n d e n tly m i t i gat i ng, even i f i tdi d notdemonstr at e thatL ew i s s u ff ers fr om s er iou s m ent al i l l nes s orbr ai n damage. U nder P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s s ta tu te, in a d d iti o n to se v e ra l sp e c if ica lly enumer at ed m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s , a def endantm aypr es ent “[a ] nyo th e re vi dence of m i t i gat i on conce r ni ng t he cha r act erand re c o rd o f th e d e f e n d a n t a n d th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f h is o f f e n s e .” 42 P a. C on s. S t at

. A nn . § 9 71 1(e )(8 ); c f

. T e r r y Wi l l i a ms , 529 U .S

. a t 3 9 5 -9 6 (c o n c lu d in g th a t “ trial co u n se l d id n o t f u lf ill th e ir o b li g ati o n to co n d u c t a th o ro u g h in v e s tig a tio n o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s backgr ound” w her e they fai l ed t o uncoverand pr es ent “extensi ve records graphical l ydescri b in g [the defe nd ant’ s] ni ght m ar i s h chi l dhood, ” i ncl udi ng i nform at i on t hatt he defendant ’ s “par ent s had bee n i m pr i s oned forthe cr i m i nal negl ectof [the def

endant ] and hi s s i bl i n g s , and that[the d e f e n d a n t] h a d b e e n se v e re lya n d r e p e a ted lyb e a ten b yh is f a th e r” ); s ee al

s o P enr y v. Lynaugh , 492 U

. S. 302, 319 ( 1989) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“evi dence aboutt he def en d ant ’ s backgr ound a n d c h a ra c ter is rele v a n t b e c a u se o f th e b e lief

, lon g h e ld b yth is so ciety , that d ef

en d an ts w h o co m m itcrim ina l a cts th at are at t ri bu t able .

. . t o em oti on al and m ental problem s, m aybe les s cul pabl e than def

enda n t s w ho have no s uch exc us e” ( i nt ernal q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) )

. Be c a u s e th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me53 C our t di d not cons i der w hether L ew i s ’ s couns el m ayhave be en in e f f e c tiv e f o r fa ili n g to in v e stig a te o r pr e se n t i n d e p e n d e n tly m it igating b ac k g rou n d ev iden ce , o n rem an d , the D istri ct C o u rt can r evi ew t hi s as pectof L ew is’ s cl ai m undera de novo s t andar d.
I V.
Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d e n ial o f re lief a s to L e w is’s c o n v ictio n , w e w ill v a c a te i t s gr ant of r el i ef as t o L ew i s ’ s s ent ence , and w e w i l l r emand for an evi dent i aryhear i ng cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.