## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January8,200 7 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### PU B L ISH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT

R O C K Y D A L E S N O W , P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t , v. M A R T Y SI R M O N S, W ar den, O k l a h o m a S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y, R es pondent - A ppel l ee . N o. 02- 7027

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he E as t ern D i s t ri ct of O kl ahom a ( D . C . N o. C I V - 00 - 70 - S ) K r i s t i C hr i s t opher , A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, fo r P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t. Pr es t on D r aper , A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , St at e of O kl ahoma ( W . A . D r ew E d m o n d so n , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, an d S e th S . B ra n h a m , A ss ista n t A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, S tate o f O k lah o m a , o n th e b rie fs), O k lah o m a C ity , O k lah o m a , fo r R e sp o n d e n tA ppel l ee.

B efor e HENR Y , S EY M OUR , and EBEL , C i rcui t Judg es. S EY M OUR , C i r cui t J udge.

### N o rm ally , w e w o u ldref er to p etitio n er/d ef

en d an t as M r. S n o wan dall 1 

### o th er w itn esses o r relev an t in d iv idu als inth e case b yth eir last n am e. B ut n early fo rtyindividu al s t es ti fied attria l, and a nu mber of add itional a ff idavit s wer e p ro f f eredinth e co urse o f

th e ap p eal an dp o st-co nv ictio nlitig atio ninth is actio n . Anumb er o f

th ese w itn esses o r af

f ian ts are related , m anyh av e th e sam e last n am e, an dm anysh are sim ilar f irst n am es. A s w e n o te later inth e o p in io n , th ese similarities h av e cau sedo ccasio n al m o m en ts o f co n f u sio ninth e state ap p ellate and f eder aldistri ctcourts . I n o ur atte mpt to avoid this c on fu si on , we wil l r efer t o pe t i t i one r/ de fe ndanta s Roc ky . Al lothe ri ndi vi dua l s wi l lbe i ntr oduc e d by thei r full nam es . There afte r, we willre fer t o R ocky ’s fam ilym embers wh o share the l a s tnam e of Snow bythe i rfi r s tnam e s . Al lothe rfam i l ym e mbe r s or w i tn e s s e s w i l lb e i d e nt i f i e db y th e i rl a s tn am e o n l y.

- 2- R ockyD al e Snow s eeks fede r al habea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254 t o chal l enge hi s O kl ahoma st at e cour t convi ct i on and s ent ence forunauthor i zed u se o f a m o to r v e h icle , as sa u lt an d b a ttery w ith a d e a d lyw e a p o n , an d m u rd e r in t he fi r s t degr ee. H e cl ai m s he r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of t r i al and ap p ell ate c o u n sel u n d er St r i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , and t hat t he s t at e s uppr es s ed exc ul pat or yand mat er i al evi dence i n vi ol at i on of B r ady v. Mar yl and , 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) . T he di s t r i ctcour t deni ed r el i ef a nd R ocky a p p e a l s . E x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S . C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 , we

1 a ffir m .

I R ock yfi l ed h i s habea s pet i t i on aft er the effect i ve d at e of the A nti t err ori sm and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ctof 1996 ( A E D PA ) . W e ar e t her efor e bound by

### - 3-

th e p ro v is io n s o f

th a t s ta tu te . McG r egorv. G i bs on , 2 4 8 F . 3 d 9 4 6 , 9 5 1 (10 th C ir . 2001) . Pur s uantt o A E D PA , our r evi ew of R ocky ’ s cl ai m s forr el i ef i s det er m i ned b yh o w th o s e is s u e s w e re a d d re s s e d b yth e s ta te c o u rt s . LeF eve rs v. G i bs on , 182 F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W here t he st at e cou rthas add res sed a pe t i t i on er’ s cl ai m s on the m eri t s, habea s r el i ef w i l l onl ybe gr ant ed w her e t he s t at e cour t deci s i on w as “contr ar yt o, or i nvol ved 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 er m i ned byt he Supr eme C our t of t he U ni t ed St at es ; or r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on t hatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det er m i nat i on of t he fa ct s i n l i ght of t he 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 .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ), ( 2 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt n o ted th a t w h e n C o n g re ss d ra f ted th is p o rtio n o f

th e sta tu te, it s peci fi cal l yus ed t he w or d “unr eas onabl e, ” and nota t er m l i ke “ e rro n e o u s” o r “ in c o rre c t.” U n d e r § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 )’s “ u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on” cl aus e, t hen, a fe der al habea s cour t m aynot i s s ue t he w r i t s i m pl ybeca us e t hatcour t concl udes i n i t s i ndepende nt j udgm ent t hatt he r el evants t at e- cour t deci s i on appl i ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fede ral l aw err on eou sl yor i nco rr ect l y . R at her, t hat appl i cat i on m ust al s o be unr eas onabl e. Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 529 U . S. 362, 411 ( 2000) . W e ar e t hus pr ecl uded fr om gr ant i ng habea s r el i ef w her e w e conc l ude t he s t at e cour t w as m er el yer r oneous or i ncor r ecti n i t s appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw . R at her , w e maygr antr el i ef onl yw hen w e ar e convi nced the s t at e cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw goes bey ond bei ng e rr o n e o u s a n d in s te a d b e c o m e s o bje c tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . Mc L u c k ie v . A b b o tt ,

### -4-

337 F. 3d 1193, 1197 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . T hi s s t andar d does not r equi r e our“abj ect defe r ence , ” i d. at1202 n. 5, but nonet hel es s pr ohi bi t s us fr om s ubs t i t ut i ng our “ow n j udgm entfort hatof the s t at e cour t . ” Wo o d fo rdv . Visc io tti , 537 U . S. 19, 25 ( 2002) . I n addi t i on, fac t ual fi ndi ngs m ade byt he s t at e cour tar e pr es um ed t o be c o rr e c t u n le s s re b u tte d b yth e p e titio n e r w ith c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . Sm ith v . Mu lli n , 3 7 9 F .3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).

“ T o th e e x ten t th a t th e sta te c o u rt h a s n o t ad d re ss e d th e m e rits o f a c laim a n d ‘t h e fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt m a d e its o w n d e te rm in a tio n in th e fir s t in s ta n c e ,’ t hi s cour t r evi ew s ‘ t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i ons of l aw de novo and i t s fi ndi ngs of fa ct , i f any , forcl earer r or . ’ ” C annon v. G i bs on , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 6 0 (1 0 th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng L eF evers , 182 F. 3d at711) . “I f t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac t ual fi ndi ngs depend e nt i r el yon t he s t at e cour t r ecor d, w e i ndepende nt l yr evi ew t hat r ecor d. ” A llen v . Mu lli n , 368 F. 3d 1220, 1234 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ). A E D PA al s o gover ns R ocky ’ s abi l i t yt o obt ai n a r emand t o t he di s t r i ct c o u rt fo r a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n h is c laim s. S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 (e )(2 ) o f th e sta tu te p ro v id e s th a t [i] f th e ap p lica n t h a s fa iledto d e v e lop th e fa c tu a l b a sis o f a c la im in St at e cour tpr ocee di ngs , the c o u rtsh all n o t ho ld an ev iden ti ary h e a rin g o n th e c laim u n les s th e a p p lica n t sh o w s th a t– (A ) th e c laim re lies o n – (i) a n e w ru le o f c o n stitu tio n a l law , m a d e re tro a c tiv e to c a se s o n c o llate ra l re v iew b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, th a t w a s p re v io u sly unavai l abl e; or ( i i ) a fa ctual pr edi cat e t hatcoul d not have be en

### - 5-

p r e v i o u s l yd i s c o v e r e d t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f d u e d i l i g e n c e ; a n d ( B) t he fa ct s under l y i ng t he cl ai m w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatbut forcons t i t ut i onal er r or , no r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have found t he appl i cantgui l t yof t he under l y i ng offe ns e. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . S e c t i o n 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) d o e s n o t a p p l y, h o w e v e r, w h e re a p e tit io n e r h a s d ili g e n tlyso u g h t to d e v e lo p th e fa c tu a l b a sis under l y i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on. A pet i t i oneri s di l i gentw hen he r eques t s an evi dent i ar yhear i ng and pr es ent s evi dence “t hatw oul d be r eadi l yavai l abl e i f t he cl ai m w er e t r ue, ” C a n n o n v . Mu lli n , 3 8 3 F .3 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 7 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), b u t h is re q u e s t is n o n e th e le s s d e n ie d , Mi l l erv. C hampi on , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 3 (10 th C ir . 1998) . I n s uch s et t i ngs , an evi dent i ar yhear i ng i s w ar r ant ed s o l ong as t he pet i t i oner ’ s “al l egat i ons , i f t r ue and notcont r avene d byt he exi s t i ng fac t ual r ecor d, w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o habea s r el i ef. ” Id. Wi t h t h e s e s t a n d a r d s i n mi n d , we tu rn to th e fa c ts p re se n ted a t R o c k y ’s tria l.

II R ocky ’ s cas e w as t r i ed t o a j ur yovera fi ve- dayper i od. T he evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al i ndi cat ed t hatar ound 10: 30 a. m . on D ece m ber8, 1988, a y oung m a n e n ter e d th e o ffice o f th e 1 2 th S tre e t F lea M a rk e t in A d a , O k lah o m a . B e tty B u sh ran the flea m ark et an d w as in the o ffice tha t m o rnin g alon g w ith R icha rd N e w lan d a n d W a y n e R u ss e ll.

### The r e c or d on appe a li s e xt e ns i ve . I ti nc lude s the e nt i r e tr ans c riptfr om 2 

### R o cky ’s trial an drelatedf ilin g s an dd o cum en ts; th e exp an d edreco rdf ro mh is di r e c tappe a l ; the r e c or d fr omhi s s t at e c ourtpos t - c onvi c t i on fi l i ngs ; and the reco rdinh is f

ed eral h ab eas co rp u s actio n . C itatio n s to th e trial reco rdw ill appear a s “ Tr. at ___ .” Stat e c ourtprel iminaryhearing p roce edings willappear as “P relim . H earin g , d ate, at _

__ .” C itatio n s to th e d irect ap p eal reco rdw ill appear a s “ Dir. Ap p., r ec . at ___ .” Citati on s t o the st at e post- conv ic ti onre cord willappear a s “ Stat e PC, re c. at___.” Cit at ions to the feder alre cord willappear as “Fed. HC, re c. , vol. ___ , doc. ___ , i te m___.” Final ly , c it at ions to the parti es b rief s o r p etitio n s w ill in d icate w h eth er th e b rief is f ro mth e d irect ap p eal (e.g ., Dir. Ap p., Aplt. Br. at ___ ), st at e post- conv ic ti onproceedi ng (State PC Pet. , dat e, at___), or federa l app ea l bri efs ( Fed. HC , Aplt. Br. at ___ ). Ru ssell co mm en tedth at “th e m an. . . h adh is eyes d isto rtedto w h ere it 3 

### w o u ldd isg u ise h is f

eatures.” T r. at 4 3 5 . H o w ev er, it w as n o t until late (co ntinu ed ...)

- 6- T h e y o u n g m a n h a d “ a f u ll h e a d o f

. . . b lo n d is h . . . lig h t b ro w n h a ir ,” w hi ch “s eemed t o be a l i t t l e fl uffe d up or di s hevel ed . . . byt he w i nd t hatday . ” T r . at 304, 422. A ccor di ng t o N ew l and, t he man w as w ear i ng j eans and a gr ayor 2 d a rk b lu e t-sh irt. H e w a s a “ c o m p a ra tiv e lyy o u n g m a n . . . [a n d ] w a s p ro b a b ly nears i x fee t t al l . ” Id. at304. N ew l and s pecul at ed t he man w ei ghed betw een 170 t o 175 pounds . T he man se emed t o be i n a hur r yand “ki nd of hel d hi s neck l i ke m a yb e h e h a d a c ri c k in [ it] ” o v e r t o th e ri g h t s id e . Id. at307. R us s el l t es t i fi ed t he man w as w ear i ng a “gr ay - hooded, zi p- up- t he- fr ont s w eat s hi r t , fade d bl ue j eans , [and] a dar k s hi r t . H e w as r oughl y5’ 11”, 6’ , [and] w ei ghed abouta hundr ed and s eventy - fi ve t o ei ght ypounds . ” Id. a t 4 2 2 , 4 3 3 . R us s el l al s o comm ent ed t hatt he man’ s “ey es had a w ei r d l ook t o t hem, ” i d. at 423, and t hat“w hen he c ame i nt o t he off i ce, he had hi s head t i l t ed w ayback. ” Id. 3

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 3 

### De c e mbe rthatRus s e l ls pe c i fi c a l l yr e m e mbe r e d the natur e of thi s di s t ort i on, wh ic h h e des cribed as al i tt l e tri c k wi th the e ye l i ds thatI ha dn’ ts e e n s i nc e I wa s i n juni or h ig hsch o o l, . . . w h ere [ k id s w o u ld ] reachup an dg rab th eir eyelid an df o ldth e to p p art d o w nto w h ere it w o u ldh an g d o w nab o ut a qu arter o f

anin chb elo wth e eyelash es. T h enth eyw o u ldrelease it, and it wou ld ju stre m ai n h anging li ke that . I t wou ld give a very w eird , k in do f

w ildlo o k . A n dto b e ab le to see, th ey ’dh av e to tilt thei r hea d w ayback and loo k und erthatpartof thei r e yel id thatwas h an g in g d o w nb elo wth e eyelash. . . . I d. at436, 462.

- 7- T h e y o u n g m a n a s k e d B u s h if h e c o u ld s e e s o m e b e d d in g . [ Id. at307. ] She lef t th e o ffice a n d led th e m a n in th e d ire c tio n o f th e flea m a rk e t sto ra g e u n it cont ai ni ng m at t r es s es and beddi ng. A few m i nut es l at er , t he man r etur ned t o t he offi ce i n w hatappea r ed t o be a s l i ght l yagi t at ed s t at e and a s ked N ew l and for f u rth e r a ss ista n c e . N e w lan d lef t th e o ffice , an d th e y o u n g m a n fo llo w e d h im to the b ed d ing u n it . A s N ew land en tered the u n it , the m an g rab b ed h is sho u lder, s t ar t ed t o t ur n hi m ar ound, and bega n t o s t r i ke hi m w i t h a kni fe. N ew l and s uffe r ed bl ow s t o hi s head, for ehea d, neck, and l efthand. N ew l and t es t i fi ed t hat hi s or i ent at i on t o t he as s ai l antw as s om ew her e betw een “ pr ofi l e[] and fa ce- t ofac e. ” Id. at335. For a br i ef pe r i od of t i m e dur i ng t he as s aul t , he w as “nos e- t onos e w i t h t he man. ” Id. at337. N ew l and comm ent ed w hi l e hos pi t al i zed a nd r ecove r i ng fr om hi s w ounds t hathe w oul d “neve r for gett hatfac e. ” Id. A ft ers t abbi ng N ew l and s ever al t i m es , t he as s ai l antr an outof t he s t or age

### - 8-

u n i t . Ne wl a n d d i d n o t i mm e d i a t e l ys e e Bu s h a n d fe a r e d s h e wa s a l s o i nj u r e d . He w as bl eedi ng pr ofus el yand w as afr ai d he mi ght l os e cons ci ous nes s , s o he r etur ned t o t he off

i ce a nd as ked R us s el l t o cal l t he pol i ce for hel p. T he pol i ce l ogged t hei r r ece i pt of t he fl ea mar ketcal l at10: 47 a. m . , and t heyar r i ved att he sc e n e a lm o st im m e d iate lya lo n g w ith e m e rg e n c ym e d ica l p e rso n n e l. B us h w as found w edged be t w een a m at t r es s and box s pr i ngs i n t he s t or age u n it. S h e h a d s u ffe re d s ta b w o u n d s to h e r h e a d , fa c e , c h e s t, b a c k , a n d ri g h t a rm . T he t op pocketof hercoatw as r i pped, and l oos e cha nge w as found on t he gr ound ar ound her . M edi cal per s onnel w er e abl e t o s t abi l i ze he r t empora r i l y , but s oon t her eaf t ers he di ed fr om herw ounds . N ew l and w as hos pi t al i zed for aboutfi ve day s. T he w eapo n w as neve r foun d, bu t a m edical exam i ner det erm i ned i t w as a s i ngl e- edged kni fe, aboutone hal f- i nch w i de and a t l eas t t hr ee i nches l ong. Som et i m e af

t er10 a. m . t hatm or ni ng, H ous t on O w ens , w ho w or ked atan e sta b lish m e n t ac ro ss th e stre e t f ro m th e flea m a rk e t, ob se rv e d a m a n d riv e u p to t he fl ea mar ketand par k a fa ded ordul l r ed C hevr ol etpi ckup. T he man w as w ear i ng a gr ayhooded s w eat s hi r t . O w ens w at ched the man w al k t o t he s out h end o f th e flea m ark et bu il d ing an d d isap p ea r. A b o u t fi ftee n to tw en tym inu tes l ater, t h e m a n r e t u r n e d , j u m p e d i n t o t h e t r u c k a n d d r o v e a w a y i n a h u r r y. T hats ame m or ni ng, J er r yB r eede n, a mechani c w ho had a s hop neart he fl ea mar ket , hear d a t r uck s peedi ng dow n t he s t r eet . H e w entout s i de t o obs er ve

### Hart shorne is locate d abo ut se venty-s ix mil es ea stof Ad a. McAles te r, 4 

### anothe rOkl ahom at own r e l e vantt o the fa c t s of thi s c a s e , i s be twe e n Adaand Hart s horne . I ti s s i xtym i l e s e a s tof Adaand aboutfi ft e e n m i l e s we s tof H artsh o rn e.

- 9- t he vehi cl e and s aw a “r eddi s h- br ow n C hevr ol etpi ckup hea di ng s out h, r unni ng s t op s i gns as i t w as goi ng. ” Id. a t 5 4 8 . O w e n s te s tifie d to o b s e rv in g th e s a m e . A ft erbei ng s how n a phot ogr aph of a J . B . St al l i ngs C ons t r uct i on C om pany ( St al l i ngs ) t r uck, B r eede n i dent i fi ed t he vehi cl e he s aw as t he t r uck i n t he p h o to g ra p h . O w e n s a ls o e v e n tu a lly id e n tifie d th e v e h ic le a s th e S ta llin g s tr u c k . T he t r uck’ s s out her nl yr out e meant i t w as t r avel i ng aw ayfr om , r at hert han t ow ar d, t he St al l i ngs w or k y ar d l ocat ed i n A da. A r ound noon t hats ame day , empl oy ees att he St al l i ngs w or k y ar d i n A da not i ced thatone of the t r ucks fr om t he w or k fl eetw as m i s s i ng. T he t r uck w as des cr i bed as bur nt or ange ordul l r ed i n col or and w as l as t s een a t t he A da l ocat i on ear l i ert hatm or ni ng. T he companyonl yhad one ve hi cl e t hi s col or . T he m or ni ng fol l ow i ng t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es , t he t r uck w as found bySt al l i ngs empl oy ees att he company ’ s H ar t s hor ne, O kl ahoma l ocat i on. 4 A t t r i al , t he s t at e’ s t heor yw as t hatR ockyt ook t he St al l i ngs t r uck fr om t he A da w or k y ar d, dr ove t o t he fl ea mar ket , and i n t he cour s e of r obbi ng B us h, m ur der ed herand s t abbed N ew l and. T he s t at e fur t hercont ended Rockydr ove t he tru c k to th e S tallin g s lo c a tio n in H a rtsh o rn e . In su p p o rtin g th is th e o ry , the sta te

### - 10-

pr es ent ed t w ent y - ni ne w i t nes s es , t hr ee r ebut t al w i t nes s es , and a va r i et yof e x h ib its. T h e d e fe n se a ttem p ted to sh if t su sp icio n fo r th e m u rd e r a n d a ss a u lt from R ock yt o h i s ol der brot her, A l l en. R ock yt oo k the st and i n h i s ow n d efen se and hi s couns el pr es ent ed t en addi t i onal w i t nes s es t o bol s t ert he defens e ca s e and cas t s us pi ci on on A l l en. I n r es pons e, A l l en fl at l ydeni ed ki l l i ng B us h or a ss a u lti n g N e w lan d . H e a lso d e n ied b e a rin g a re se m b lan c e to th e c o m p o site im a g e c re a ted b yth e p o lice o f th e a ss a ilan t. A centr al component of t he s t at e’ s cas e w as bas ed on N ew l and and R us s el l ’ s ey e w i t nes s i dent i fi cat i ons of R ocky . T he dayaft ert he murde r and as s aul t , bot h m en i ndi vi dual l ym etw i t h H ar veyPr at t , a pol i ce a r t i s t , t o cr eat e a c o m p o site im a g e . P ra tt ex p lain e d th a t a s a p o lic e a rt is t, in in te rv ie w in g a w itn e s s o r a v ic tim to a c ri m e , I go t hr ough a verbal des cr i pt i on w i t h t he w i t nes s . B yt hat , I as k a ser i es of q uest i on s r egardi ng ph y si cal charact eri st i cs, m ann eri sm s, a n d s p e e c h p a tte rn s . A f te r w e g o th ro u g h a w ri tte n d e s c ri p tio n , I show t he w i t ness or t he v i ct i m s an Identi fi cat i on K i t , w hich i s a sm al l bo ok l et com pri sed of faci al charact eri st i cs.

. . . A s w e g o th ro u g h th e [ k it], I’ll a sk th e w itn e ss o r v ictim to p ick o u t th e p a ir o f

e y e s o r lip s o r n o se th a t co m e s th e c lo se st. A s t heypi ck outt he di ffe r entcat egor i es , I vi ew t hem, and at th a t tim e , I a m m a k in g a d ra w in g . . . . A nd as I m ake the t hi s dr aw i ng, and I compl et e al l t he c o m p o n e n ts o f

th e fa c ial c h a ra c ter istics , I . . . sh o w th e d ra w in g to t he w i t nes s and as k t hem t o m ake a nychange s . . . . A nd w e’ l l go t hr ough t he s er i es agai n . . . – once w e’ ve gotevery t hi ng as cl os e as th e yc a n g e t, th e n w e w ill q u it. N ow , t he d raw i ng i s not a posi t i ve ident i fi cat i on . I al so adv i se t he w i t nes s es t hat . T he dr aw i ng i s a l ook- a- l i ke, s i m i l ar i t i es . T hey ar e notpos i t i ve orpor t r ai t qual i t y . T hey ’ r e a s ket ch.

### - 11-

Id. at881- 82. Pr at t al s o acknow l edged he has a “de s cr i pt i ve dat a s heet , ” i d. at 8 8 0 , th a t h e g o e s o v e r w ith th e w itn e s s e s , a n d h e s p e c ific a lly a s k s a b o u t s c a rs . H e a ffirm e d th a t if h e w e re to ld a b o u t a s c a r, h e w o u ld in c lu d e it i n a c o m p o site dr aw i ng. Pr at t w entt hr ough t hi s pr oces s w i t h bot h N ew l and and Russ el l . A ft er r evi ew i ng t he compl et ed i m age, N ew l and s ugges t ed t hatt he fa ce be dr aw n t o l ook a bi t l ongerand t hatt he hai r neede d t o be cha nged. A ccor di ng t o N ew l and, i n t he i ni t i al composi t e, t he hai r “l ooked cl os e t o t he hea d, fai r l ycl os e t o t he hea d, not fl uffy , not bus hy . ” Id. at340. R us s el l w as neverful l ys at i s fi ed w i t h t he i m age beca us e i t di d not captur e t he unus ual appea r ance of t he as s ai l ant ’ s ey es . N ei t her m an ment i oned w het hert he as s ai l anthad anys car s or di s t i ngui s hi ng m ar ks . T he c o m p o s ite im a g e w a s p o s te d in A d a , a n d s o o n th e re a f te r B a rb a ra D u n c a n , a w om an w ho cas ual l yknew R ockyt hr ough hi s gi r l fr i end, M ar ci a C r os s , i nfor m ed t he pol i ce s he t hought R ockybor e a r es embl ance t o t he composi t e i m age. R ocky w as s ubs equent l yar r es t ed as a s us pectfort he D ece m ber8 cr i m es and cha r ged wi t h u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f a mo t o r v e h i c l e . As d i s c u s s e d i n mo r e d e t a i l b e l o w, R ockyadmi t t ed t o dr i vi ng t he St al l i ngs t r uck fr om A da t o H ar t s hor ne. O n D ece m ber13, fi ve day s aft ert he cr i m es , pol i ce c onduct ed a s i x- m an l i ne- up. R ockyand fi ve men enr ol l ed at E as t C ent r al U ni ver s i t yi n A da, O kl ahoma com pr i s ed t he l i ne- up. Pr i or t o t he l i ne- up, R ocky ’ s cour t - appoi nt ed

### Dr. J oh n H un eke t es ti fied attria l that he tre at ed Ro ckyin May19 88 fo r a 5 

### s e ri ous c utove rhi s l e fte ye . The doc t ors t at e d thatthe wound “ ha d t o be s ur gi c a l l yr e pa i r e d, ” Tr . at786, and the i njurywa s l i ke l yt o l e ave ape rm ane nt scar. T h e d o cto r f

urth er testif

iedth at th e scar w o u ldh av e b eenm o re o b v io u s in De c e mbe r1988 than duri ng the tri a l , whi c h oc c urr e d i n June 1989.

- 12- at t or ney , J es s G r een, uns ucce s s ful l yobj ect ed t o i t s cons t r uct i on, as s er t i ng A l l en sh o u ld h a v e b e e n in c lu d e d . C o u n se l als o in sis ted R o c k yb e a llo w e d to tid yh is hai r s o t hati t w oul d have a gr oom ed appe ar ance m or e l i ke t hatof t he ot herm en i n t he l i ne- up. A s G r een t es t i fi ed att r i al , pr i or t o t he l i ne- up R ocky ’ s hai r w as m essy an d loo k ed li k e h e h ad b ee n sleep ing . G ree n w as c o n ce rne d R o ck y ’s m us s ed hai r w oul d m ake hi m s t and outi n t he l i ne- up. C ons equent l yhe had R ockyw etdow n hi s hai r , dr yi t and gr oom i t . I t w as dr yfort he l i ne- up. C ouns el w as al s o conce r ned t hatt he s caroverR ocky ’ s l eftey ebr ow w oul d be a di s t i ngui s hi ng fea t ur e. I n r es pons e t o t hi s conce r n, t he pol i ce r equi r ed t he 5 me mb e r s o f

t h e l i n e - u p t o p u t a s ma l l b a n d - a i d o v e r t h e i r l e f t e y e b r o w. T he pol i ce c onduct ed t w o s epar at e l i ne- ups , one forN ew l and and the ot her fo r R u s s e ll. B o th lin e -u p s w e re v id e o ta p e d a n d la te r v ie w e d b yth e ju ry a t tr ia l. R ockyw as t he four t h m an i n t he l i ne- up. N ei t herN ew l and norR us s el l pi cked R ockyas t he fl ea mar ketas s ai l ant . I ns t ead, t heybot h i ndepende nt l ypi cked the s i xt h m an i n t he l i ne- up, R i char d M ar kum , w ho w as athom e w i t h hi s w i fe on the m orni ng of D ecem ber 8. Jeff C rosby , t he o ffi cer w ho videot aped t he li ne-ups, t es t i fi ed i t w as qui t e unus ual fort w o w i t nes s es t o pi ck outt he s ame i ndi vi dual

### - 13-

fro m a li n e-u p w h en that ind ividu al w as n o t th e su sp ec ted p erp etrator. A t t ri al , N ew l and t est i fi ed thathe w as asked to sel ect t he m an w ho m ost cl os el yr es embl ed t he man at t he fl ea mar ket , and he unde r s t ood he coul d pi ck onl yone man. H e s ai d t hatfol l ow i ng t he l i ne- up t he off i cer s i nfor m ed hi m he “had made t he w r ong choi ce. T hati s , [he] had notpi cked the D efe ndant . ” Id. at 324. N ew l and fur t hers t at ed t hatw hi l e he ha d pi cked the s i xt h m an outof t he l i ne- up, he had “ pr i vat el y. . . m ade a s econd s el ect i on, ” i d. at328, w hi ch w as R o c k y . G r een t es t i fi ed t hatas N ew l and w as vi ew i ng t he l i ne- up, he poi nt ed t o t he six th m a n , M a rk u m , an d sta ted “ [ t]h a t’s th e o n e th a t lo o k s th e m o st lik e h im , to m yr ecol l ect i on. ” Id. at801. G ar yR odger s , a l ead i nves t i gat or i n t he ca s e w ho w as pr es entatt he l i ne- up, al s o s ai d N ew l and t ol d hi m t hatnum bers i x “appe ar ed t o be s i m i l arfr om w hathe coul d r eca l l t he s us pectappea r i ng on t he dat e t hatt he i ncident occu rr ed. A nd he indi cat ed thatnu m ber fou r [R ock y ] – t here w as j ust s om et hi ng aboutnum berfour , t hathi s ey es j us t di dn’ t s eem r i ght fors om e r eas on

. . . . ” Id. a t 5 2 7 -2 8 . R us s el l t es t i fi ed he unde r s t ood he “w as s uppos ed t o pi ck outt he man w ho m os t cl ear l yatt he t i m e r es embl ed t he man at t he fl ea mar ket . ” Id. a t 4 3 6 . A ccor di ng t o C r os by , R us s el l s t at ed t he s i xt h m an i n t he l i ne- up, M ar kum , l ooked t he mostl i ke t he man he s aw i n t he fl ea mar keton D ece m ber8. D ur i ng t he l i ne-

### - 14-

up, R us s el l as ked t he four t h m an, R ocky , t o come for w ar d t o t he l i ne- up w i ndow s o he coul d t ake a cl os erl ook athi m . B eca us e R us s el l r emem ber ed t hat“t he man a t th e flea m a rk e t h a d h a d h is e y e s d isto rte d to w h e re it w o u ld d isg u ise h is fea t ur es , [he] w ant ed t o s ee i f [he ] coul d gett hi s di s t or t i on . . . w i t h t he man w ho w as num berfouri n t he l i ne- up. ” Id. at435. A ccor di ng t o G r een, R us s el l as ked t he pol i ce t o “be s ur e and make [Rocky ] l ook up. ” Id. at802. O t her s obs er vi ng th e lin e -u p , h o w e v e r, tes tifie d R o c k yn e v e r c o m p lete lylo o k e d u p o r w id e n e d h is ey es as he w as di r ect ed byt he pol i ce. R us s el l i ndi cat ed he mi ght have pi cked R ocky , exce pt “hi s ey es [w er e not ] r i ght . ” Id. at504. R us s el l w as al s o aw ar e af t ert he l i ne- up t hathe had notm ade the r i ght choi ce be caus e the man he pi cked w as not “t he man t hathad bee n” att he fl ea m a rk e t. Id. at439. A l t hough he chos e M ar kum , he t ol d t he pol i ce M ar kum “more near l yr es embl es t he one a t t he fl ea mar ket , but t hi s i s not t he per s on w ho di d i t . ” Id. at457. R us s el l r etur ned t o t he pol i ce s t at i on t he dayaft ert he l i ne- up to in q u ir e if

th e re w a s a n y th in g e ls e h e n e e d e d to d o to h e lp in th e in v e s tig a tio n . H e b u m p e d in to C ro s b ya n d s ta te d h e u n d e rs to o d h e p ic k e d th e w ro n g m a n . C r os byr es ponded “y ou know , t hat ’ s not t he per s on w e w er e s us pect i ng. ” Id. at 505. I n t he day s fol l ow i ng t he uns ucce s s ful l i ne- up, t he A da Eveni ng N ew s r an a n u m b e r o f

a rticle s re g a rd in g th e flea m a rk e t cr im e s. O n D e c e m b e r 1 4 , an a rticle

### T h e f ed eral h ab eas reco rdref lects th at t he pape r r epor t ed t he as s i s t ant 6 di s t r i ctat t or ney“ac cus ed Snow of at t empt i ng t o conce al hi s i dent i t ydur i ng t he lin e -u p a n d re q u e s te d m o re tim e to p re p a re c h a rg e s in th e c a s e .” F e d . H C , re c ., v o l. I II , d o c . 1 4 , ite m G . A d d itio n a l a rt ic le s re p e a te d th is g e n e ra l in fo rm a tio n . Id. Fi nal l y , on D ece m ber20, t he pape r r an an a r t i cl e t hatr ei t er at ed t he i nfor m at i on det ai l ed i n t he pr evi ous ar t i cl es , but al s o i ncl uded a c opyof t he c o m p o s i t e i m a g e c r e a t e d b y P r a t t , a l o n g w i t h a p h o t o g r a p h o f R o c k y.



### - 15- s ta te d th a t R o c k yh a d b e e n a rr e s te d a n d a s s a u lt a n d m u rd e r c h a rg e s w e re p e n d in g . It f u rt h e r s ta te d R o c k yh a d b e e n p a rt o f a lin e -u p , b u t h a d n o t b e e n id e n tifie d . T he fol l ow i ng day , an addi t i onal ar t i cl e not ed t hatN ew l and and Russ el l pi cked a d i ffe r e n t m a n o u t o f t h e l i n e - u p . T h e n e x t d a y, R us s el l cal l ed t he pol i ce a nd 6 i ndi cat ed he ha d s el ect ed t he w r ong m an i n t he l i ne- up and t hatR ockyw as t he m an he ha d s een a t t he fl ea mar ket . H e t ol d t he pol i ce he “had made t he w r ong c h o ic e , a n d [ h e ] . . . w a s n ’t c o n v in c e d w h o w a s th e g u ilty p a rt y ” f ro m th e lin e -u p . T r. a t 4 4 0 . O n Febr uar y28, 1989, a pr el i m i nar yhear i ng w as hel d r egar di ng t he u n a u th o ri z e d v e h ic le u s e c h a rg e a g a in s t R o c k y , th e s o le c h a rg e th e n p e n d in g . T h e sta te’ s first w itn e ss , N e w lan d , tho u g h t h e w a s a p p e a rin g a t th e h e a rin g to t es t i fyon t he as s aul tand murde r char ges . R ockyw as s t i l l r epr es ent ed byG r een, w ho obj ect ed t o N ew l and t es t i fy i ng. C ouns el ’ s obj ect i on w as over r ul ed w hen t he s t at e expl ai ned t hat“M r . N ew l and w as athi s pl ace of bus i nes s , and s ubs equent w i t nes s es w i l l i dent i fyt he pi ckup l eavi ng t he s cene t her e . . . . ” Pr el i m . H ear i ng, Feb. 28, 1989, at6. R ockyw as pr es entatt he hea r i ng, w ear i ng pr i s on garb but

### Rus s e l lwa s atthe pr e l i m i naryhe ari ng butdi d nott e s t i fy . Whi l e the r e , he 7 

### sawR o ckyb ein g b ro u g h t into th e co urtro o mb yp o lice o f f icers.

- 16- not handcuffs . A ft erbei ng ques t i oned byt he s t at e, N ew l and i dent i fi ed R ockyas 7 th e m a n a t th e flea m a rk e t o n th e m o rn in g o f D e c e m b e r 8 . T h e sta te im m e d iate ly so u g h t to a m e n d th e c h a rg e s a g a in st R o c k yto in c lu d e th e m u rd e r a n d a ss a u lt c o u n ts. A t R o c k y ’s c o u n se l’s re q u e st, th e h e a rin g w a s c o n tin u e d . W h e n it r es um ed on A pr i l 10, 1989, G r een w i t hdr ew and B ar neyW ar d, w ho had bee n h i r e d b y R o c k y’ s fa t h e r , b e g a n r e p r e s e n t i n g R o c k y. A t th e se c o n d p re lim in a ryh e a rin g , as w e ll as a t trial, N e w lan d a n d R u ss e ll b o t h p o s i t i v e l yi d e n t i fi e d Ro c k ya s t h e ma n a t t h e fl e a ma r k e t o n De c e mb e r 8 . At t r i al , bot h w er e ques t i oned as t o w hyt heyw er e unabl e t o i dent i fyR ockyi n t he l i ne- up fi ve day s aft ert he D ece m ber8 cr i m es but t hen coul d i dent i fyhi m i n t he pr et r i al and t r i al pr ocee di ngs . N ew l and expl ai ned he di d not pi ck R ockyfr om t he lin e -u p b e c a u s e R o c k ya p p e a re d d iffe re n tly th e re th a n h e h a d a t th e fle a m a rk e t. N e w lan d re c a lled th a t at th e lin e -u p , R o c k y ’s h a ir w a s “ slic k e d d o w n p re tty slic k ,” T r. at 3 2 1 , an d “ it ap p e a re d th a t h e h a s a . . . p e rm a n e n t sc a r o n h is for ehea d, and t hats eemed t o s how up t hatday. . . l i ke i t w as i r r i t at ed or s om et hi ng. ” Id. at321, 353. On c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n , Wa r d q u e s t i o n e d Ne wl a n d a s t o t h i s r e a s o n i n g . He as ked N ew l and t o exami ne a phot ogr aph t aken of t he l i ne- up, and N ew l and

### - 17-

a c k n o w le d g e d th a t e a c h m a n in th e lin e -u p h a d a b a n d -a id o v e r h is le f t e y e . N ew l and fur t heradmi t t ed t hathe di d not i nfor m any one he thought t he band- ai ds m i ght be cove r i ng s car s , or w het herhe eve n t hought t hi s atal l . O t her s pr es entat t he l i ne- up al s o t es t i fi ed t hatnei t herN ew l and norR us s el l s aw R ockyw i t h w et hai r , and t hatR ocky ’ s hai r w as dr yi n t he l i ne- up. N ew l and t hus s eemed t o be c o n f u se d a b o u t h o w R o c k ylo o k e d o n th e d a yo f th e lin e -u p a n d h o w h is a p p e a ra n c e d iffe re d f

ro m th e m a n a t th e flea m a rk e t. N ew l and fur t heradmi t t ed t hats om et i m e betw een the D ece m ber13 l i ne- up and t he Februar y28 pr el i m i nar yhear i ng, he s aw a phot ogr aph of Rockyi n t he A da Eveni ng N ew s . N onet hel es s , he cl ai m ed he di d not i dent i fyR ockybas ed on see ing the p ictu re in the p ap er. R athe r, N ew land said “I’m iden ti fy ing h im , o r I di d i dent i fyhi m , beca us e I r emem bert he fa ce of t he one w ho as s aul t ed me, and th a t w a s n o t n e c e ss a rilyth e sa m e fa c e I sa w in th e lin e -u p , [h e ] d id n o t ap p e a r to be t he s ame per s on, [he] had a di ffe r entappea r ance . ” Id. at355. D e fe n se c o u n se l als o q u e stio n e d R u ss e ll o n h is fa ilu re to id e n tify R o c k yin t he l i ne- up. R us s el l s ai d he pi cked M ar kum out of t he l i ne- up i ns t ead of R ocky beca us e M ar kum ’ s ey es l ooked “mor e di ffe r entt han t he mostnor m al ey es t hat y ou s ee. ” Id. at454. H e al s o s ai d t hatR ocky ’ s hai r appea r ed di ffe r entt o hi m at the line-u p than the h air of the a ssailant at t h e flea m ark et. H e stated that “[ o ]n th e 8 th o f

D e c e m b e r, w h e n th e m a n c a m e in to th e o ffice , itw a s v e ryw in d y , an d it

### Co nv er se ly , HarveyPratt, the polic e s ketc h art is t, te stifie d at tri alhe was 8 

### un ab l e t o s e e R o c ky ’ s s c arw h i l e h e o b s e rv e dh i m i nth e c o urtr o o m.

- 18- h a d b e e n ra in in g a n d sn o w in g , w h ich w o u ld h a v e c a u se d it t o b e so m e w h a t w e t, w hi ch w oul d m ake i t appea r t o be di ffe r entatt hatt i m e. ” Id. a t 4 5 5 . R u ss e ll admi t t ed on cr os s - exami nat i on t hathe di d nots ee a s carovert he as s ai l ant ’ s l eft e y e , b u t ac k n o w led g e d th a t R o c k yh a d a sc a r “ p ro c e e d in g f ro m th e m id d le o f

h is l eftey ebr ow up on hi s for ehea d. ” Id. at 451. H e expl ai ned t hatatt he fl ea 8 m ar ket , he di d not l ook di r ect l yi nt o t he as s ai l ant ’ s fac e. T he pr os ecut i on as ked R u ss e ll t o sta n d n e x t to R o c k yin th e sa m e p o sitio n a s h e h a d sto o d in re latio n to t he as s ai l anton t he dayof t he as s aul t . W hi l e i n t hi s pos i t i on, R us s el l t es t i fi ed that h e w as u n ab le t o see R o ck y ’s sca r. T he st at e present ed a v ari et yof o t her evi den ce t o fu rther i t s case agai nst R o c k y . A t th e tim e o f th e flea m a rk e t cr im e s, R o c k yw a s s tayi n g in A d a w ith h is b ro th e r A llen . F ro m tim e to tim e , R o c k ya lso liv e d w ith h is fa th e r, Jo h n S n o w , in M cA l est er, O klahom a. A l l en w orked a s a m echan i c for S t al l i ng s. In t he co urse of hi s w or k, he oft en dr ove t r ucks i n t he St al l i ngs fl eet , i ncl udi ng t he bur nt or ange pi ckup. A l l en t es t i fi ed t he companypol i cyr egar di ng t r uck us e w as t hat “if y o u n ee d o n e, t h e k ey s are in the m . Y o u just go fin d o n e tha t som eb o d yain’t us i ng and t ake i t . ” Id. at624. G l enn Pender gr as s , bookkeepe r and off i ce manager fo r S tallin g s, te stified th a t “d e p e n d in g o n th e jo b . . . [w ]e ’ll h a v e c e rta in p e o p le

### Gl e nn Pe nde r gr a s s a l s o t e s t i fi e d thatRoc kyha d ne ve rbe e n e mpl oye d by 9 

### St a l l i ngs . Roc kyha d appl i e d forajob byfi l l i ng outan e mpl oye e i de nt i fi c at i on qu es ti on nair e. Th e c ompanykept thes e quest ionn ai re s on f il e i n cas e theyneeded to hire anyon e. Tr i a lt e s t i m onyi s unc l e arr e gar di ng whe the rRoc kyand Al l e n’ s e ve ni ng 10 

### atthe Sport s m an’ s baroc c urr e d on De c e mbe r6 or7. On di r e c tappe a land durin g th e state an df

ed eral h ab eas p ro ceed in g s, h o w ev er, th e p arties ap p ear to a gr e e thatthe e ve nt s atthe Sport s m an’ s baroc c urr e d on De c e mbe r6, 1989. Roc kyha d two gi r l fr i e nds : Ke l l yKl i ft , who l i ve d i n Mc Al e s t e r , and 11 

### Marc iaCross, wh o lived in Ad a.

- 19- as s i gned t o t he vehi cl es . . . . N or m al l y , w e l eftt he key s i n [t he t r ucks ] , and of c o u r s e , w e l o c k e d u p o u r g a t e a t n i g h t w h e n w e l e f t . B u t n o r m a l l y, t h e k e ys s t ay ed i n t he pi ckups . ” Id. at725- 26. 9 A dayor s o befor e t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es , R ockyand A l l en s pentpar t of their ev en ing at t h e S p o rt sm an ’s ba r i n M cA lest er. K ell yK li ft, o n e o f R o ck y ’s 10 gi r l fr i ends , and hers i s t erK i m ber l yM i l l er , vi s i t ed w i t h R ockyand A l l en att he

11 b a r. K lift te stified th a t o n a t lea st tw o o c c a sio n s, R o c k yin fo rm e d h e r h e w o u ld be r etur ni ng t o M cA l es t eri n a coupl e of da y s . H e s ai d he w as dr i vi ng one of the St al l i ngs t r ucks fr om A da t o M cA l es t erforhi s br ot her , and t hatA l l en had offer ed t o p ayhim t o acco m pli sh t his t ask. A l l en d i d n ot par t i ci pate i n these c o n v e rsa tio n s, b u t w a s c lo se a t h a n d w h e n R o c k ysh a re d th is in fo rm a tio n w ith K lif t. R o c k yte s tifie d A lle n to ld h im “ th a t if M r. S ta llin g s h a d a p ic k u p fo r . . . [A l l en] t o t ake t o M cA l es t er , and t hati f I w ant ed t o go hom e, t hatI coul d dr i ve t he t r uck forhi m i ns t ead . . . . ” Id. a t 9 0 0 . A l l e n w a s g o i n g t o g i v e R o c k y t h i r t y-

### Al l e n a dm i tt e d t o havi ng as ubs t ant i a lc ri m i na lr e c or d. Atthe t i m e of 12 

### tria l, he had alr ea dyam as se d six prior c on vict ions, i ncluding fo ur se conddegree b urg laries an do n e arm edro b b ery . A t th e tim e o f trial, A llenw as serv in g tim e in j a i la s th e r e s u l to f

h i s c o nt i nu e dc ri m i n a la c t i v i ty.

- 20- fi ve dol l ar s forgas . A l l en t es t i fi ed ot her w i s e, s t at i ng R ockyhad i nfor m ed hi m he w o u ld b e re tu rn in g to M c A le s te r b u t th a t h e h a d s o rt e d o u t h is o w n tr a n s p o rt a tio n . R o ck yd id n o t ow n a c ar. T he fol l ow i ng day , on D ece m ber7, R ockyand A l l en w entt o t he A da fl ea m a rk e t to d o so m e C h ristm a s s h o p p in g . T h e yw e re a c c o m p a n ied b yM a rc ia C r os s , R ocky ’ s ot hergi r l fr i end. A l l en t es t i fi ed t hataft erm aki ng a pur chas e, R ockycomm ent ed t hatone of the fl ea mar kets al es m en had a gr eatdeal of m oney and i t w oul d be eas y t o knock t he man i n t he hea d and s t eal fr om hi m . A l l en “t ol d [R ocky ] t hati f he w as goi ng t o be . . . doi ng t hi s ki nd of t hi ng[] , . . . [he] di dn’ t w anthi m ar ound [hi s ] hous e, beca us e [he ] w as t i r ed of doi ng t i m e . . . . ” Id. a t 6 2 7 , 6 5 1 . R o c k yd e n ied e n g a g in g in th is c o n v e rsa tio n . L a ter th a t n ig h t, 12 R ock yand A l l en w ent t o see a fil m , w here ano t her m ov i e patr on , M el vin Jones, obs er ved R ocky“w ear i ng bl ue j eans , a l i ght col or ed s w eat s hi r t and a gr ayzi p- up t ype s w eatj acke t w i t h a hood and hi gh- t op t enni s s hoes . ” Id. at 96 8. Jones al so s t at ed R ocky ’ s hai r w as l ongeri n t he bac k, and “pr obabl yw entdow n t o hi s col l ar

. . . . ” Id. O n D ece m ber8, t he dayof t he murde r and as s aul t , A l l en t es t i fi ed he a w oke

### - 21-

at 6 a .m ., a n d w e n t to w o rk . H e c laim e d h e w o rk e d in th e S tallin g s y a rd u n til a b o u t 9 a .m ., a t w h ich p o in t h e u se d th e b u rn t o ra n g e tru c k to d riv e b a c k to h is apar t m entand w ake up Rocky . A l l en t es t i fi ed he then r etur ned t o t he St al l i ngs y ar d and s t ay ed t her e unt i l noon. T he s t at e t her eaf t erpr es ent ed a s al es r ece i pt fr om a l ocal s t or e, B & M ’ s A ut o Par t s , t i m e s t amped 9: 54 a. m . and s i gned by A l l en. W i t h hi s m emoryr efr es hed, A l l en t es t i fi ed t hataft erhe had a w akene d R o c k y , h e w e n t to th e a u to p a rt s s to re b e fo re re tu rn in g to th e S ta llin g s y a rd . Id. at639. O nce ba ck att he y ar d, A l l en w or ked w i t h J ohn H i ggenbot ham, anot her St al l i ngs empl oy ee. H i ggenbot ham t es t i fi ed he ha d been i n and outof t he St al l i ngs y ar d t hat mo r n i n g , r e t u r n i n g a t a b o u t 1 0 : 3 0 a . m. wi t h a r a d i a t o r . “ Al l e n h e l p e d [ h i m] unl oad t he r adi at or out of [hi s ] pi ckup, and [they ] put i t overi n fr ont of t he M ack t r uck t hati t w as t o go on. ” Id. at720. H i ggenbot ham sai d t he t w o m en t hen chat t ed fora w hi l e, unt i l j us t befor e 11 a. m . A s H i ggenbot ham l eftt he y ar d, he c h e c k e d h is w a tc h b e c a u s e h e w a s in c h a rg e o f k e e p in g h is o w n h o u rs fo r w o rk . H e p roc ee d ed to the b an k to ca sh a p erso n al ch ec k . W h il e the re, he o v erh ea rd bank s t aff

di s cus s i ng t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es w hi ch had j us t occurr ed. C har l es W al dr op, anot herSt al l i ngs empl oy ee, al s o gener al l yver i fi ed A l l en’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s t i m e att he St al l i ngs y ar d t hatm or ni ng. W al dr op t es t i fi ed t hatA l l en s pentt he morni ng r epai r i ng t he companyt r uck W al dr op us ed,

### - 22-

and t hatA l l en w as i n and outof t he y ar d pur chas i ng par t s . W al dr op t hought he l as t s aw A l l en r etur ni ng t o t he St al l i ngs y ar d i n t he bur nt or ange tr uck atar ound 9: 30 a. m . H e w as not aw ar e w het herA l l en made anyot hert r i ps t hatm or ni ng. Em o r yHo l t t e s t i fi e d h e a r r i v e d a t t h e S t a l l i n g s y a r d s o me t i me a f t e r 1 0 a . m. t hatdayt o pi ck up a pa y chec k. A s he w as dr i vi ng t ow ar d t he y ar d ent r ance , he s aw t he bur nt or ange r ed t r uck bei ng dr i ven outbya man he l at eri dent i fi ed as R ock y . H e t est i fi ed h e paid cl ose at t enti on t o w ho w as dri ving t he truck becau se he had be en l ai d off f

r om w or k t w o day s pr i or and w as cur i ous t o s ee w ho S tallin g s w a s c u rre n tlye m p lo y in g . H e w a s c e rta in th e d riv e r w a s n o t A llen . H o lt w e n t in to th e b u sin e ss o ffice to c o llec t h is c h e c k a n d c h a tted w ith t w o empl oy ees w ho w er e t her e. H e t hen l eftt he St al l i ngs y ar d and w entt o cas h hi s chec k atan es t abl i s hm entneart he fl ea mar ket . Soon t her eaf t er , he hea r d pol i ce s i r ens and s aw an ambul ance dr i ve by . W hen he l eft , he not i ced the fl ea mar ketw as cl os ed and surr ou nd ed b yem ergency veh i cl es. A l l en t es t i fi ed he l eftt he St al l i ngs y ar d ar ound noon forl unch and not i ced t he bur nt or ange tr uck w as m i s s i ng. H e al s o t es t i fi ed t hathe t hought he hea r d t he t r uck s t ar t up ar ound 10 or 10: 30 a. m . W al dr op and Pender gr as s al s o not i ced the tr u c k w a s m is s in g a ro u n d 1 1 :3 0 o r n o o n th a t d a y . R ockyt es t i fi ed t o t he eve nt s of t he morni ng of D ece m ber8, but hi s acc ount v a r i e d i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s f r o m th a t p r e s e n t e d b yt h e o t h e r wi t n e s s e s a t t r i a l . He

### Hol de nvi l l e i s aboute l e ve n m i l e s north of the ha l fwaym ark be twe e n Ada 13 

### and M cAle st er .

- 23- s ai d t hats om et i m e af

t er10 a. m . , A l l en ca m e byt he apa r t m entt o gethi m . R ocky t es t i fi ed t her e w as m oney , i f I r emem berr i ght , l ay i ng i n t he s eatof t he pi ckup w ith s o m e re c e ip ts f

ro m a p u rc h a s e h e h a d m a d e a n d s o m e b o x e s . A nd w e w entt o t he St al l i ngs y ar d, and t hen w e bot h got out and w ent i n . We c a r r i e d t h e s t u ff h e h a d p u r c h a s e d i n s i d e t h e s h o p , a n d we sto o d a ro u n d th e re fo r a w h ile . . . I w o u ld sa y , m a yb e fif tee n , tw e n ty m i n u t e s , m a yb e e v e n l o n g e r t h a n t h a t . A n d t h e n h e g a v e m e t h e k e ys t o t he pi ckup. H e s ai d, “I ’ l l s ee y ou t oni ght . ” I s ai d “O ’ kay , ” and a s I wa s l e a v i n g t h e y a r d , I s e e n s e v e r a l e mp l o y e e s . I n o d d e d t o t h e m, l eftt he y ar d, and I w ents t r ai ght t o H ol denvi l l e. Id . at 901. E xceptforH ol t , w ho t es t i fi ed t o s eei ng R ockydr i ve outof t he

13 S t al l i ng s y ard i n the burnt or ang e t ruck som et i m e aft er 10 a. m . , no on e el se cl ai m ed t o have s een Rockyatt he St al l i ngs y ar d t hatm or ni ng. On c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n , Ro c k yr e a ffi r me d h i s t e s t i mo n yt h a t Al l e n h a d c o me byt he apa r t m entt o w ake hi m up ar ound 10 a. m . and t hatt heyl eftt oget hert o go to th e S tallin g s y a rd . H e f u rth e r te stified h e w a s c o n sta n tlyw ith h is b ro th e r, o r in t he t r uck, fr om t he t i m e A l l en pi cked hi m up. H e r emem ber ed s eei ng s om eone dr i vi ng i nt o t he St al l i ngs y ar d as he w as l eavi ng w i t h t he t r uck. R ockyagr eed w ith th e s ta te th a t th e a s s a u lt a n d m u rd e r p ro b a b ly o c c u rr e d a ro u n d 1 0 :4 5 a .m ., t hatt he pol i ce w er e ca l l ed at10: 47, and t hatt he t r uck s een a t t he fl ea mar ketw as th e b u rn t o ra n g e tr u c k h e d ro v e to H a rt s h o rn e . Id. at914.

### - 24-

A t t hi s poi nt , t he s t at e as ked R ockyhow i t coul d be t hatt he t r uck he w as w i t h fr om 10 a. m . onw ar d, ei t herw i t h hi s br ot heror dr i vi ng t ow ar d H ar t s hor ne, coul d al s o have be en att he fl ea mar ket . Fl um m oxed, R ockyr api dl yr efi ned and re v ise d h is te stim o n y . H e sa id I w as att he St al l i ngs y ar d. W e gott her e r i ght ar ound - - - fr om t h e p r e v i o u s t e s t i mo n i e s t h a t I h a v e h e a r d , I c a n o n l ya s s u me m yt i m e fr ame, and fr om w hateven mybr ot herhas s ai d, t hat he pur chas ed t he par t s ar ound 9: 54 t hatm or ni ng. I know he c a m e , p o ss ib ly , d ire c tlyto th e h o u se . H e p ick e d m e u p , an d if y ou’ r e count i ng t i m e- w i s e, he pi cked me up at10: 00. W e w ent t o the y ard. W e w ent s t rai gh t t o the y ard, and he – S ee I m ust h av e b ee n there ten m inu tes, p rob ab lyten m inu tes, o n the y ard bef or e he l ef

t, and w hen he c am e back, i tw as pos s i bl y ar ound, I don’ tknow , 10: 45 . I know I w as t her e on t he y ar d fora l ong t i m e, and w e vi s i t ed t hatl ong. Id. at 91 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). In d ica tin g su rp rise , the p ro se c u to r a sk e d R o c k yw h yh e d id n o t in c lu d e in hi s ear l i ert es t i m onyt he veryi m por t anti nfor m at i on t hathi s br ot herl eftt he St al l i ngs y ar d. R ockys i m pl yans w er ed, “I w as not as ked. ” Id. at917. T he pr os ecut or t hen as ked R ockyt o cl ar i fyw hatt i m e he l eftt he y ar d aft erA l l en a lle g e d ly re tu rn e d . R o c k yb e g a n to s a yth a t h e le f t S ta llin g s a ro u n d 1 0 :4 5 a .m ., but t hen s t opped hi m s el f. H e t hen s t at ed “A l l en w as back a r ound 10: 47, s o I co u ldn ’th av e lef

t or l ef t at1 0 :45 , so I ha d to h av e lef t a fe w m inu tes b efo re 11: 00. ” Id. at919. R ockyt hen adde d t hatA l l en “ha d [hi m ] i n a gar age w or ki ng o n s o m e b ra k e s ” fo r a s e m i a n d a h a lf-t o n tr u c k . Id . at 9 1 9 -2 0 . W h a t is c lea r is

### A s n o tedearlier, th e w eap o nw as n ev er f o un d . N o r w ere th e p o lice ab le 14 

### to o b tainmu chp hy sical ev id en ce f ro mth e scen e o f

th e crim e. T h e p o lice d id m ake apl a s t e rc a s tof abootpri nt , and the yt ook phot ogr aphs of at i r e tr a c k and skid m arks in the a ll eybehindthe fle a m arket as wellas of Ro cky ’s te nn is shoes inA llen ’s ap artm en t. Kl i ftt e s t i fi e d thatl at e rs he ha d ac onve r s at i on wi th Roc kyaboutwhathe 15 

### (co ntinu ed ...)

- 25- t hats om et i m e dur i ng t hes e var i ed t i m e l i nes , a man ar r i ved att he fl ea mar keti n a bur nt or ange faded r ed t r uck, m ur der ed B us h, and as s aul t ed N ew l and. 14 R o c k yf u rth e r te stified th a t w h e n h e lef t th e S tallin g s y a rd , h e d ro v e to H ol denvi l l e. W hi l e i n H ol denvi l l e, he s hopped ata W al - M ar t , put gas i n t he tr u c k a n d c h e c k e d its o il, s to p p e d fo r a p iz z a , a n d th e n p ro c e e d e d to M c A le s te r. O nce i n M cA l es t er , R ockys t opped t o vi s i t hi s father , J ohn, w ho expr es s ed c o n c e rn a b o u t R o c k yd riv in g a S tallin g s tru c k . R o c k yc laim e d h is fa th e r sa id “W el l , w hatar e y ou doi ng w i t h t he pi ckup, ” and I t ol d hi m , I s ai d, “ A lle n h a d m e b ri n g it d o w n h e re to M r. S ta llin g s , a n d h o p e f u lly, I ca n g et m e a job fo r M r. S tal li n g s. ” A n d m yd ad said , R o ck y , d o n ’t tr u s t h im . Y o u k n o w h o w h e is , b e c a u s e h e h a s a lw a y s h a d . . . a p e rs o n a l p ro b le m a g a in s t yo u . Id. a t 9 0 3 . 

### Jo hnS n o wd idn o t testif yat trial. R o c k yth e n w e n t to th e h o m e o f K a re n B lac k , w h e re h is g irlfr ien d K e lly K l i ftw as as s i s t i ng B l ack i n herbaby s i t t i ng bus i nes s . K l i ftr emem ber ed R ocky ar r i ved betw een 1: 15 and 1: 30 p. m . i n t he St al l i ngs pi ckup t r uck. She and B l ack b o th tes tifie d th a t R o c k ylo o k e d d irty . “H e h a d o il o n h is je a n s a n d d irt. H is h a ir w as m es s ed up. ” Id. at579, 604. B l ack s ai d R ockyt ol d herhe had be en 15

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 15 

### w as w earin g w h enh e arriv edan dth at h e co n f irm edh e w as w earin g b o o ts, j ean s, a t- shirt, and a thic ker plai d shirt. Late r, ho wever, Ro ckytold her he was w e ari n gt e nn i s s h o e s . A l l e nt e s t i f i e dR o c ky w a s w e ari n g w o rkb o o t s th atd ay. Roc ky ’ s s i s t e r , Ange l i aSt anl e y , t e s t i fi e d thaton Nove mbe r29, 1989, s he cut R o cky ’s h air qu ite sh o rt. S h e saidth at “h is h air u sedto b e real lo n g . . . it h adreal b add eaden d s, an d[ R o cky] to ld[ h er] cut it all o f f. Ino rd er to g et all th at o f f , [ sh e] h adto cut it sh o rt, an dth en[ sh e] m essedup , an d[ sh e] h adto re al lycut i t s ho rt .” I

d. at 7 9 5 . Kl i ftve ri fi e d St anl e y ’ s ve r s i on of e ve nt s . On Nove mbe r29, s he unde rwe ntaone - days ur gi c a lpr oc e dur e . Roc kyc am e t o s e e he rbe for e the pr oc e dur e , and the n a ga i n a ft e rwar d. Kl i ftt e s t i fi e d thathi s ha i rha d be e n c ut b etw eenth e tim e sh e h adth e o p eratio nan dw h ensh e sawh imaf terw ard s. Gi lbe rtLawr e nc e , pr e s i de ntof St a l l i ngs , i ndi c at e d thatonl yhe orJ . B. 16 

### St a l l i ngs , owne rof the c ompany , ha d the authori tyt o pe rm i tan e mpl oye e t o dri ve one of the c ompanytruc ks fr omone l oc at i on t o anothe rand thathe di d notgi ve Ro ckypermis si onto do so. Pendergra ss al so te stifie d that Rockyhad n everbeen h i r e dt o dri v e atru c kf

r o mA d at o H art s h o rn e . J . B . S t a l l i n g s t e s t i f i e ds i m i l ar l y.

- 26- w or ki ng forSt al l i ngs C ons t r uct i on dr i vi ng a t r uck. T i m W ebb, a fr i end R ocky s poke t o l at ert hatday , al s o t es t i fi ed t hatR ockyi nfor m ed hi m “he w as w or ki ng forJ . B . St al l i ngs par t - t i m e, and t hat ’ s w hyhe had the t r uck. ” Id. at672. 16 A lth o u g h R o c k ytes tifie d h e w a s to d e liv e r th e tru c k to th e S tallin g s y a rd in H ar t s hor ne, he nonethel es s engage d i n a number of ac t i vi t i es befor e doi ng s o and at t empt ed t o fi nd a pl ace t o l eave t he t r uck w hi l e he a ccompl i s hed hi s per s onal t asks. H e i nit i al l yt ri ed to l eave the t ruck w i t h W ebb , bu t W ebb decli ned so R ockyl eftt he t r uck atK l i ft ’ s hom e. U s i ng K l i ft ’ s car , R ockyand K l i ftr an a number of err ands and t hen w ent b ac k to R o ck y ’s fa ther’s h o m e. R o ck ytest ifi ed h is da d ex p resse d an g er tow ard

### - 27-

A l l en abouts om et hi ng, and K l i ftt es t i fi ed t hatJ ohn t ol d R ocky“t o t ake [ t he t r uck] back t o t he y ar d and w i pe t he fi ngerpr i nt s off of i t . ” Id. at583. I ns t ead of i m m edi at el ydoi ng s o, R ockycont i nued w i t h hi s ow n agenda . K l i ftand R ocky eventual l yr etur ned t o B l ack’ s r es i dence t o pi ck up B l ack’ s chi l dr en and t ake th e m o u t fo r p izz a . W h e n th e yfin ish e d d in n e r a n d re tu rn e d th e c h ild re n to B l ack’ s hous e, R ockyand K l i ftw entback t o herhom e t o gett he t r uck. K l i ft fo llo w e d R o c k yin h e r c a r w h ile h e d ro v e th e tru c k to th e S tallin g s y a rd in H artsho rne . K li ft g av e R o ck ya ra g an d h e w iped o ff the truc k p er h is fathe r’s in stru c tio n s. R o c k yc o m m e n ted th a t h e th o u g h t A llen m ig h t b e try in g to se t h im up. T he nextday , R ocky , K l i ft , and M i l l erw ents hoppi ng and enc ount er ed an angr yA l l en att he M cA l es t erW al - M ar t . K l i ftr emem ber ed A l l en s ay i ng “s om et hi ng aboutt he t r uck and thathe w as n’ t goi ng t o go t o pr i s on forany one. ” Id. at592. A l l en t es t i fi ed he a s ked R ocky“i f he t ook t he tr uck and ha d any t hi ng t o do w i t h t he ki l l i ng over. . . i n [A da] , and [Rocky ] deni ed bot h of t hem. ” Id. at 6 3 7 . Ro c k yt e s t i fi e d Al l e n “ p u l l e d [ h i m] a s i d e a n d s t a r t e d t e l l i n g [ h i m] s om et hi ng about , ‘ I ’ m i n t r oubl e bec aus e of y ou. ’ H e s ai d, ‘ W hydi d y ou t ake the pi ckup t o t he St al l i ngs ’ y ar d? W hyar e y ou m aki ng i t l ook l i ke I di d i t ?’ A nd [R ocky ] di dn’ t under s t and w hathe w as t al ki ng about. . . ” Id. at908. T he t ens i on and verbal s par r i ng bet w een Rockyand hi s br ot hercont i nued t hat

### - 28-

aft er noon att hei r father ’ s hous e. L at er , K l i ftand M i l l erbot h over hear d R ocky a sk h is fa th e r if

h e sh o u ld g o b a c k to A d a to c lea r th in g s u p , b u t Jo h n to ld h im not t o w or r yabouti t att he mom ent . R ockyt es t i fi ed t hathe di d not t hen know an as s aul t and murde r had occ ur r ed i n A da. Sondr a C ampbel l , a chi l dhood fr i end of Rocky , t es t i fi ed t hatt he fol l ow i ng e v e n in g , D e c e m b e r 1 0 , sh e w a s a t th e Z o d iac B a r in M c A les ter . A c c o rd in g to C a m p b e ll, R o c k yc a m e in to th e b a r a n d sta rte d c h a tti n g w ith h e r. C a m p b e ll d e sc rib e d R o c k ya s w e a rin g b lu e jea n s, a n a v y -b lu e sw e a t jac k e t th a t zip p e d a ll t he w ayup, and bl ack a r m ycombat boot s . H i s hai r w as “l ong, col l arl engt h, and i t cover ed hi s ear s . ” Id. a t 7 6 2 . She s ai d t heyt al ked aboutt hei r s har ed chi l dhood, and then he t ol d herhe h ad k il led tw o p eo p le i n A d a fo r m o n ey . H e a lso told h er “ h e w en t t o w h ere A l l en w or ked and s t ol e hi s t r uck, s t ol e t he t r uck fr om t he company , ” i d. at760, but t hathe eve nt ual l yhi t chhi ked bac k t o M cA l es t er . H e as ked heri f s he knew w h e re h e c o u ld g e t a h a ir c u t, as “ h e n e e d e d to g e t itw a sh e d a n d c u t b e c a u se it s m el l ed l i ke bl ood. ” Id. a t 7 5 9 . C a m p b e ll t e stified th a t w h ile s h e c o u ld n o t sm e ll anybl ood, t he man she w as s peaki ng w i t h di d need a hai r cut . C ampbel l as ked R ockyt o l eave hert abl e, and he t ol d her“nott o t el l anybody , beca us e i f [s he]

### So ndraCampb el l bec am e awitnes s for the s tate ju stday s before Rocky ’s 17 

### tria l began. All en’s girl frie nd , J eann ie McNeelus, had re ce ntlybefrie nd ed C amp b ell an dexp ressedco n cernab o ut A llenh av in g to testif yat trial. C amp b ell s a i d s he ha d nott ol d anyone aboutRoc ky ’ s c onfe s s i on be c aus e s he wa s a fr a i d, bu t s he eventual lytold McNeelus. McNee lus t old the po li ce abou t Rocky ’s c onfe s s i on t o Campbe l l . McNe e lus be gan c oope r at i ng wi th the pol i c e and re corded a subsequent conversati onwith Campb el l i n w hich Campb el l r epeate d whats he ha d pr e vi ous l yt ol d McNe e lus . Campbe l lwa s the n que s t i one d bythe pol i c e and c a l l e d bythe s t at e a s awi tne s s . Attri a l , Campbe l lde ni e d be i ng threaten edb yM cN eelu s to testif y , b ut sh e in d icatedth eyw ere n o lo n g er f rien d s. Ja ck Stri ng er , an inv es ti gator on R ocky ’s dire ctappeal , i nterviewed 18 

### C amp b ell inD ecemb er 1 9 9 2 . S tate P C P et., Ju ly2 4 , 1 9 9 5 , at 1 2 0 . S h e “said everything that s he te stifie d to at tri alwas true t o the bestof her m em ory .” I

d. Sh e further s tate d “no on e threate ned h erafte r s he was arr es te d to tes ti fy .” I d.

- 29- di d, he w oul d ki l l [her ] . ” Id. at760. 17 O n cr os s - exami nat i on, R ocky ’ s at t or neyques t i oned C ampbel l aboutt he extentof h er fr i end shi p w i t h R ock yand ho w l on g ithad been si nce theyhad l ast s een e ach otherand enga ged i n a s ubs t ant i ve conve r s at i on. A ft eres t abl i s hi ng C am pb el l had no t sai d m ore t han a passi ng hell o to R ock yov er the p astt en y ears , h e a s k e d “ [ a ] n d y o u ’ r e t e l l i n g t h i s Co u r ta n d j u r y , u n d e r o a t h , t h a t h e j u s t c a me up t o y ou i n a t avern i n M cA l es t erand confes s ed t o t w o fi r s t degr ee mur der s and ar m ed r obber i es ?” Id. at 76 8. C am pb el l answ ered i n the affi rm at i ve. S he als o t es t i fi ed t hatas faras s he w as abl e t o s ee, t he man she s poke t o i n t he bardi d not have a s caron hi s fac e. B ut C ampbel l admi t t ed s he w as abl e t o s ee the s caron R o c k y ’s fo re h e a d in th e c o u rt ro o m . Id. 18 D efe ns e couns el pr es ent ed w i t nes s es w ho count er ed C ampbel l ’ s ver s i on of

### A llenh adsin ce m o v edf ro mA d a to M cA lester to liv e w ithM cN eelu s. 19



### - 30- event s . R ober t Scofi el d t es t i fi ed t haton t he eve ni ng of D ece m ber10, R ocky w or ked forhi m . Scofi el d w as t he r es t aur antm anage r att he R amada I nn, w hi ch h a d h o ste d a b a n q u e t th a t ev e n in g . R o c k yw a s s c h e d u led to a ss ist S c o field in t e a r i n g d o wn t h e b a n q u e t r o o m. Ro c k ya r r i v e d s o me t i me b e t we e n 9 a n d 1 0 p . m. and w or ked foratl eas t t hr ee hour s . Scofi el d des cr i bed R ockyhas havi ng col l ar l engt h hai r att he t i m e. K l i ftt es t i fi ed t hats he j oi ned herm ot heratt he banque t t hat evening and t hen around 8 o r 8: 30 p. m . picked u p R ock yat his fat her’ s hou se and br ought hi m back t o t he banque t t o w or k. She s t at ed s he w as w i t h R ockyfor th e e n tire e v e n in g a n d h e lp e d h im o n th e b a n q u e t jo b . R o c k y ’s v e rsio n o f e v e n ts w as s i m i l ar . H e cl ai m ed K l i ftpi cked hi m up ar ound 9 p. m . , and t hatt heyw or ked unt i l ar ound 11 p. m . or m i dni ght . R ockydeni ed goi ng t o t he Zodi ac ba r t hat e v e n in g o r e n g a g in g in a n yc o n v e rsa tio n w ith C a m p b e ll. In an effo rtt o fu rther r ai se r easona ble doub t as t o R ock y ’s gu i l t , defe nse couns el pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om J ani ce Benson. B ens on w as t he s i s t erof J eanni e M cN eel us , A l l en’ s gi r l fr i end, and had l i ved br i efl yw i t h M cN eel us and A l l en i n J anuary 1989, j us t fol l ow i ng t he fl ea m ar ket cr i m es . B ens on t es t i fi ed 19 t haton J anuary7, 1989, s he, A l l en, and M cN eel us , al ong w i t h M i ke Tri pp and E ddi e Snow , A l l en’ s cous i n, w er e vi s i t i ng atM cN eel us ’ hous e. A l l en had r ece nt l ym oved cl ot hi ng and di s hes he had be en s t or i ng athi s father ’ s apar t m ent

### - 31-

to M cN ee lus’ h o m e, an d B en so n test ifi ed that A ll en an d M cN ee lus w ere unpacki ng t he boxes . A ccor di ng t o B ens on, E ddi e as ked A l l en i f R ockyhad bonded outof j ai l , and “A l l en s t ar t ed l aughi ng and s ai d, ‘ N o, t hey ’ ve gothi m on m ur der . ’ ” Id. at850. B ens on fur t hert es t i fi ed t hatA l l en t ol d t he gr oup he w ant ed to sh o w th e m so m e th in g , an d h e w e n t o v e r to o n e o f h is b o x e s a n d p u lled o u t a k it ch en k n ife w ith a w o o d en h an d le on it . H e sa id “[ t] h is i s the k n ife the y ’re l ooki ng fori n A da. ” Id. at851. H e al s o s ai d he w as not goi ng t o l etany one fi nd hi m w i t h i t . A l l en deni ed enga gi ng i n anys uch conve r s at i on. B ens on al s o t es t i fi ed t hats he w as atM cN eel us ’ hous e a few ni ght s l at er w a tch in g a m o v ie w ith A llen , h e r sis ter , an d E d d ie. T h e re w a s a sc e n e in th e film w her e a man had a bi g dr i l l , and he w as ki l l i ng [a] l ady . A nd A l l en s ai d, “O n T V , t heym ake i t l ook s o eas yt o ki l l s om ebody , but i t ’ s not l i ke t hatatal l . ” H e s ai d, “W hen y ou s t ab s om ebody , y ou hi t bones , and y ou hi t m us cl e, and t heys t ar t gur gl i ng and choki ng on t he bl ood. ” Id. at852. A l l en deni ed t hi s occurr ed. A few day s l at er , B ens on w as atM cN eel us ’ hom e hel pi ng A l l en and M cN eel us cl ean up the hous e and y ar d. A ccor di ng t o hert es t i m ony , t heyt ook boxes out of t he hous e and dr ove t o a dump t o di s pos e of the t r as h. She t es t i fi ed t hatone of the boxes cont ai ned t he kni fe A l l en i nt i m at ed w as us ed i n t he A da fl ea m a rk e t cr im e s. S h e sa id sh e w e n t to th e p o lice a n d sh a re d th is in fo rm a tio n w ith t hem. O ffi cer s J oe H ogan and G ar yR odger s dr ove outt o t he dump w i t h B ens on,

### Al l e n di d t e s t i fythats oon a ft e rRoc kys t oppe d l i vi ng wi th hi m , he 20 

### di s c ove r e d akni fe wa s m i s s i ng. He de s c ribe d the kni fe a s havi ng “ apr e ttygood s i z e dw o o d e nh an d l e o ni t. . . [ w i th ] . . . an i n e , t e ni n c hb l a d e , r e a l , r e a ls k i nny, li ke it ’s been sharpened dow n f or qu it e afew tim es .” I d. at645.

- 32- but t heyw er e unabl e t o fi nd t he kni fe. She l at ert ol d herm ot hers he had gi ven th is in fo rm a tio n to th e p o lic e , a n d h e r m o th e r i n tu rn to ld M c N e e lu s a n d A lle n . A c c o rd in g to B e n s o n , A llen c a lled m e u p se v e ra l ti m e s, a n d h e to ld m e th a t h e w o u ld k ill m e i f I di dn’ t s hut m ym out h aboutw hatw as goi ng on. H e s ai d t hat he w oul d nevergo back t o pr i s on, and he t ol d m e – atfi r s t he w as j us t t hr eat eni ng m e, and I t ol d hi m I w as n’ t afr ai d of hi m . A nd t he he ca l l ed me up and s ai d, “I ’ m goi ng t o ki l l y our ki ds i f y ou don’ t l ay off. ” Id. at 85 5. U nsurpri si ng l y , A l l en d enied al l of these al l egati on s. 20 O n cr os s - exami nat i on, B ens on admi t t ed t hatw hen s he s poke t o t he pol i ce, s he di d not s peci fi cal l yi dent i fyT r i pp and Eddi e t o t he off i cer s . She cl ai m ed T r i pp had al r eadyt hr eat ened he r l i fe i f s he s poke t o t he pol i ce. She al s o cl ai m ed E ddi e’ s gi r l fr i end had thr eat ened he r . L i kew i s e, s he t es t i fi ed M cN eel us t ol d her

“ so m e b o d yw a s g o in g to file p e rju ryc h a rg e s o n m e . S h e sa id I w o u ld b e so rryif I came dow n her e t o t es t i fy . She s ai d s he w oul d m ake myl i fe he l l . ” Id. at861. T he s t at e s ought t o under m i ne B ens on’ s s t at ement s bypr es ent i ng t es t i m ony fro m h er m o ther a n d O fficer H o g an . H er m o ther testi fied that B en so n ’s st o ry aboutA l l en w i t h t he kni fe w as dr i ven byr evenge beca us e B ens on w as angr yat

### B en so nan dh er m o th er w ere n o t clo se. S h e testif iedth at h er m o th er d id 21 

### n o tr a i s e h e r , th e y d i dn o tg e ta l o n g an ds p o k e o n l y o c c a s i o n a l l y. I n h i s s t at e po s t - c onvi c t i onpr oc e e di ng s , Ro c kywa s r e pr e s e nt e d b ys t a ff 22 

### f ro mth e O k lah o m a In d ig en t D ef en se S y stem , C ap ital P o st-C o nv ictio nD iv isio n . So onafte r his firs t pet ition w as file d, the Capit alPo st -Con vict ion D ivis ion h ad e i ghtype r c e ntof i t s fundi ng c utand t e rm i nat e d am a jori tyof i t s s t a ff. I n l i ghtof

(co ntinu ed ...)

- 33- M cN eel us and A l l en for s t eal i ng B ens on’ s gun. O ffi cerH ogan ver i fi ed he ha d 21 sp o k e n w ith B e n so n a b o u t A llen ’s s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g th e k n ife b u t th a t in h is opi ni on, B ens on w as not a t r ut hful per s on. A ft erhear i ng al l of t hi s evi dence , t he j ur yfound R ockygui l t yof t he t hr ee co u n ts ag ains t him . A t th e e n d o f th e se co n d stag e p roc ee d ing s, the ju ry rec o m m en d ed a d ea th se n tenc e. T h e tri al co u rtim p o sed sen tenc es o f tw en tyy ea rs fort he unauthor i zed ve hi cl e us e, ni net y - ni ne y ear s fort he as s aul t , and dea t h for t he murde r . R ocky ’ s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s w er e affi r m ed on di r ectappea l aft ert he O kl ahoma C our t of C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) per m i t t ed t he r ecor d t o be e x p a n d e d w ith n u m e ro u s a ffid a v its . Sn o w v . S ta te , 8 7 6 P . 2 d 2 9 1 ( Ok l a . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). R o c k y ’s p e titio n fo r r e h e a ri n g w a s reje c te d , Sn o w v . S ta te , 879 P. 2d 1 5 0 (O k la. C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ), an d th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied h is p e titio n fo r w ri t o f

c e rt io ra ri , Sn o w v . Ok l a h o ma , 5 1 3 U . S . 1 1 7 9 (19 9 5 ). R ockyfi l ed hi s fi r s t appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt fo r P o n to to c C o u n tyin Ju ly1 9 9 5 , w h ich h e w a s p e rm itt e d to su p p lem e n t in J ul y1997. H e w as deni ed an e vi dent i ar yhear i ng, and hi s pet i t i on w as deni ed by

22

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 22 

### the s e fi nanc i a ldi ffi c ul t i e s , Roc ky ’ s c a s e wa s t e mpor ari l yabat e d. I n 1997, the c ourtdi r e c t e d thatbri e fi ng on Roc ky ’ s c a s e be c ompl e t e d. Atthatt i m e , Roc ky wa s pe rm i tt e d t o s uppl e m e nthi s s t at e pos t - c onvi c t i on pe t i t i on. Ro ckyfile d a se condapplic at ion f or st at e post- conv ic ti onre li ef 23 

### c ha l l e ngi ng hi s de ath s e nt e nc e i n l i ghtof the Supr e m e Court ’ s de c i s i on i n Atki ns v. V irg in ia , 536 U. S. 304 ( 2002) . I n Atki ns , the Courthe l d thatthe e xe c ut i on of am e nt a l l yr e t ar de d i ndi vi dua lwoul d c ons t i tut e c rue land unus ua lpuni s hm e nt unde rthe Ei ghtAm e ndm e ntof the Uni t e d St at e s Cons t i tut i on, butl e ftt o the st at es the t as k o f “dete rmining w hich of fend er s are in factre tarded.” I d. at 3 1 7 . R o cky ’s case w as rem an d edf o r a trial o nth e issu e o f h is m en tal retard atio n . Sn o wv. Sta te , 87 P. 3d 626 ( Okl a . Cri m . App. 2004) . He wa s found t o be m en tallyretard edas d ef in edb yO k lah o m a law , an dh is senten ce w as m o d if iedto li fe impris on m ent witho ut the possibili tyof parole .

- 34- t h e s t a t e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n S e p t e mb e r 1 9 9 7 . I n a n u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n , t h e OCCA u ltim a te ly affir m e d th e d e n ia l o f re lie f. Sn o w v . S ta te , P C 9 7 - 1 3 5 0 ( Ok l a . Cr i m. A pp. , N ov. 10, 1999) . O ne j udge di s s ent ed, as s er t i ng R ockys houl d have r ece i ved an ev i den t i aryheari ng regar ding a nu m ber of h i s B r ady c la im s . Id. at15. 23 R o c k yfiled a p e tit io n fo r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s in fe d e ra l co u rt in Ju ly 2000. W i t hout conduct i ng an evi dent i ar yhear i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour t deni ed R o ck y ’s req u est fo r reli ef. R o ck yap p ea led, an d w e g ran ted h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r a cer t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yon hi s cl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of t r i al and app el l at e cou nsel , as w el l as hi s B r ady cl ai m s.

### - 35- III B ra d y C la im R ockycont ends t he pr os ecut i on w i t hhel d evi dence i n vi ol at i on of B r ady v. Mar yl and , 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) , t her ebyunder m i ni ng t he r el i abi l i t yof t he ver di ct agai ns t hi m . T he w i t hhel d evi dence i ncl uded O kl ahoma St at e B ur eau of Inv esti g ati o n (O . S . B . I. ) no tes o f a n interview w ith K ri s G rog ins; an O . S . B . I. i nt er vi ew r epor t of D uncan; vi deot aped i nt er vi ew s of a number of w i t nes s es ; t he audi o t ape of

M cN eel us and C ampbel l di s cus s i ng R ocky ’ s confe s s i on t o t he fl ea m ar ketcr i m es ; O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew not es of C r os s ; O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew not es of A l l en and the ac company i ng vi deot ape of t hati nt er vi ew ; and i nfor m at i on r egar di ng al l eged pol i ce c oer ci on, l eadi ng t o C ampbel l ’ s t r i al t es t i m onyand her eventual r eca nt at i on of t he s ame. R ockycl ai m s t hi s w i t hhel d evi dence w as excu l pator yand i t s suppressi on rai ses s eri ou s dou bts as t o the st at e’s case against h i m. I n B r ady , t he Supr eme C our t hel d t hat“t he s uppr es s i on byt he pr os ecut i on of evi dence favor abl e t o an ac cus ed upon r eques t vi ol at es due pr oces s w her e t he e v id e n c e is m a ter ial e ith e r to g u ilto r to p u n ish m e n t, i rre sp e c tiv e o f th e g o o d fa ith or bad fa i t h of t he pr os ecut i on. ” Id. at87. “I n or dert o es t abl i s h a B r ady vi ol at i on, a habe as pet i t i onerm us t s how t hat : ( 1) t he pr os ecut i on s uppr es s ed evi dence ; ( 2) t he evi dence w as favor abl e t o t he ac cus ed; and ( 3) t he evi dence w as

### - 36-

m at er i al t o t he defens e. ” B anks v. R eynolds , 54 F. 3d 1508, 1516 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( ci t i ng F er o v. K er by , 3 9 F .3 d 1 4 6 2 , 1 4 7 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); Uni t ed St at es v. D eLuna , 1 0 F .3 d 1 5 2 9 , 1 5 3 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )) . B r ady cl ai m s nor m al l ypr es ent mi x e d q u e s t i o n s o f

l a w a n d fa c t , wh i c h we r e v i e w de novo . Fost er v. Ward , 182 F .3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 9 1 -9 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); B anks , 54 F. 3d at1516. E x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e in c lu d e s im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e . Uni t ed St at es v. B agl ey , 4 7 3 U .S . 6 6 7 , 6 7 6 (1 9 8 5 ); Nuckols v. G i bs on , 2 3 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 7 (1 0 th C i r. 20 00 ). H ow ever, excu l pator yevidence is on l ym at eri al i f “t here i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , had t he evi dence been di s cl os ed t o t he defens e, t he 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 iffe re n t. A ‘re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty ’ is a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci entt o under m i ne conf i dence i n t he out come. ” B agl ey , 473 U .S . at 6 8 2 ; B anks , 54 F. 3d at1518. T he Supr eme C our t has fur t herr efi ned t he B r ady/ B agl ey m at eri al i t yst and ard as fol l ow s: B agl ey ’ s t ouchs t one of mat er i al i t yi s a “r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y ” of a di ffe r entr es ul t , and t he adj ect i ve i s i m por t ant . T he ques t i on i s not w het hert he defendantw oul d m or e l i kel yt han nothave r ece i ved a di ffe r entver di ctw i t h t he evi dence , but w het heri n i t s abs ence he r ece i ved a fai r t r i al , under s t ood as a t r i al r es ul t i ng i n a ver di ct w o rt h yo f

c o n fid e n c e . K yl es v. Whi t l ey , 514 U . S. 419, 434 ( 1995) ( ci t i ng B agl ey , 4 7 3 U .S . a t 6 7 8 ). See a lso S c o tt v. Mu lli n , 3 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 3 0 -3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W h e n e n g a g in g in a m a ter ialitya n a ly sis , w e a re n o t to c o n sid e r e a c h p iec e o f w ith h e ld e v id e n c e in is o la tio n . B anks , 5 4 F .3 d a t 1 5 1 8 .

### O k lah o m a’s P o st-C o nv ictio nP ro cedure A ct, O KLA 

### . S T AT 

### . t i t . 22, §§ 24 

### 10 80 - 10 89 , “ e mbo di e s the pri nc ipl e s of res ju dica ta and p re clud es st at e c ollate ra l re view of

is sues ac tual lyra is ed ondire ctappeal , a s wel l a s tho se is sues that could h ave been ra is ed ondire ctappeal , but were no t. ” Bre c he e n v . Re y nolds , 41 F.3d13 43 , 134 9 n .4 (10th C ir . 199 4). Th e federa l dis tric t c ourtno te d the procedural barand state d it was 25 

### ther efore “pre clud ed fromconsidering the is sues no t r ai se d o n d ir ec t app ea l. ” F ed . H C , rec., v o l. V II, d o c. 3 8 at 5 5 . Se eHalev . Gi bs on , 227 F. 3d 1298, 1330 n.15 (10th C ir . 200 0) (Oklahom a’ s Post- Co nv ic ti onProcedure Act “ is an a de quat e s t at e bart o Brad y claim s raisedo np o st-co nv ictio nrev iewth at co u ld have be e n r a i s e d on di r e c tappe a l . ” ) . Howe ve r , the di s tri c tc ourthe l d i twa s not nece ss ary“t o res olve [the Bradycl ai m s] onthe bas is of procedural barsi nce [ th e ] C o urt[ f

o un d ] th atth e d o c um e nt s w e r e e i th e rn o ts up p r e s s e df r o m[ R o c ky] orthe ywe r e not‘ m at e ri a l ’ t o hi s de fe ns e . ” Fe d. HC, r e c . , vol . VI I , doc . 38 at55.

- 37- R at her , w e r evi ew t he cumul at i ve i m pactof t he w i t hhel d evi dence ; i t s ut i l i t yt o t he defens e as w el l as i t s pot ent i al l ydamagi ng i m pacton th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c a se . F u rth e rm o re , . . . w e e v a lu a te th e m a ter iality o f w ith h e ld e v id e n c e in lig h t o f th e e n tire r e c o rd in o rd e r to d e ter m in e if

th e o m itt e d e v id e n c e c re a tes a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t d id not ot her w i s e exi s t . W hatm i ght be cons i der ed i ns i gni fi cantevi dence in a stro n g c a se m ig h t su ffice to d istu rb a n a lre a d yq u e stio n a b le v e rd ict. Id. (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m it ted). R ock yfi rs t rai sed his B r ady c laim s in sta te c o u rt in h is p e tit io n fo r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef. T he O C C A r ej ect ed al l but t hr ee of R ocky ’ s cl ai m s as bar r ed u n d e r O k la h o m a ’s P o s t- C o n v ic tio n P ro c e d u re A c t, s ee O K LA . S TAT . t i t . 22, §§ 1080- 1089, r eas oni ng he coul d have r ai s ed t hes e cl ai m s on di r ectappea l but fa i l e d t o d o s o . Th e s t a t e c o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e me r i t s o f Ro c k y ’ s c l a i ms 24 re g a rd in g C a m p b e ll, G ro g in s, a n d th e lo st v id e o tap e d in ter v iew s. W e b e g in 25

### - 38-

w i t h t he cl ai m s t he O C C A addr es s ed on t he mer i t s , r ecogni zi ng w e ca n gr ant r el i ef onl yw her e t he s t at e cour t ’ s r es ol ut i on of R ocky ’ s cl ai m s w as cont r ar yt o, or an u n rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n o f, S u p rem e C o u rtp rec ed en t. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d); Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . at 4 1 1 ; Mc L u c k ie , 337 F. 3d at1197. R ock yal l eges t he st at e’s fai l ure t o d i scl ose po l i ce no t es fr om G rogi ns’ i nter view viol at es B r ady . H e cl ai m s G r ogi ns ’ t es t i m onycoul d have unde r m i ned t he s t at e’ s pr offe r ed t i m e l i ne fort he morni ng of D ece m ber8 and cha l l enged A lle n ’s a lib i fo r h is w h e re a b o u ts th a t m o rn in g . T he pol i ce i nt er vi ew ed G r ogi ns i n m i d- D ece m ber1989 r egar di ng her r ecol l ect i on of eve nt s on t he morni ng of D ece m ber8. She t ol d t hem t hat s om et i m e betw een 10 a nd 10: 45 a. m . t hatm or ni ng, s he s aw A l l en “dr i ve up and par k att he apa r t m enti n w hatl ooked l i ke a c om panypi ckup. [H e] l eftt he mot or r u n n i n g a n d we n t i n s i d e h i s a p a r t me n t a n d s t a y e d j u s t a s h o r t t i me , t h e n h e c a me o u t and d rov e o ff. H e c am e the re a lon e a n d left alon e.” F ed . H C , rec . , v o l. III , doc. Y . She di d not s ee a ny one el s e l eave t he apa r t m ent , and s he di d not s ee R o c k y . Id. La t e r , i n a n a ffi d a v i t d a t e d J u l y1 9 9 7 , s h e n a r r o we d t h e t i me f r a me fo r w h e n s h e s a w A lle n a rr iv e to b e tw e e n 1 0 :1 5 a n d 1 0 :3 0 a .m . Id. Th e OCCA r ej ect ed t hi s cl ai m on t he mer i t s , s um m ar i l yconcl udi ng i n a s i ngl e s ent ence t hat th e in fo rm a tio n f

ro m G ro g in s ’ p o lic e in te rv ie w w a s n o t e x c u lp a to ry. Snow , PC 97- 1350, at4.

### - 39-

W e have hel d t hateven w her e a s t at e cour t ’ s deci s i on on t he mer i t s l acks anal y s i s , w e mustdefe r t o t hatr ul i ng under§ 2254( d) “unl es s our i ndepende nt re v iew o f

th e re c o rd a n d p e rtin e n t fe d e ra l law p e rsu a d e s u s th a t it s re su lt cont r avene s or unr eas onabl yappl i es cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , or i s bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det er m i nat i on of t he fa ct s i n l i ght of t he evi dence pr es ent ed. ” A y c o x v . Ly tle , 196 F. 3d 1174, 1178 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . A ft erengagi ng i n an i ndepende nt r evi ew of t he r ecor d and t he r el evantfede r al l aw w hi l e r emai ni ng m ind fu l of

§ 2 2 5 4 (d)’s h igh lyd efere n ti al st an d ard , w e c o n clud e the stat e c o u rt ’s r ul i ng r egar di ng t he G r ogi ns i nfor m at i on w as not an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of fe d e ra l la w . G r ogi ns ’ s t at ement s t o t he pol i ce pa r t i al l ycount ert he t i m e l i ne pr es ent ed byt he s t at e as t o A l l en’ s m ovement s on t he morni ng of D ece m ber8. A l l en t es t i fi ed he w oke R ockyar ound 9 a. m . and t her eaf t erbought aut o par t s and re tu rn e d to th e S tallin g s y a rd . T h e sto re re c e ip t in d ica ted A llen m a d e h is pur chas e at9: 54 a. m . , and A l l en t es t i fi ed he r etur ned t o t he w or k y ar d aft er compl et i ng t hi s s al e. O t hert es t i m onypr es ent ed att r i al pl ace s A l l en att he S ta llin g s y a rd o n D e c e m b e r 8 w ith H ig g e n b o th a m f ro m a b o u t 1 0 :3 0 u n til 1 1 a .m . G r ogi ns t ol d t he pol i ce s he s aw A l l en att he apa r t m ents om et i m e betw een 10 a nd 1 0 :45 a.m . , rathe r th an at 9 a . m . , as A ll en att ested . T o this ex tent then , G rog in’s t i m e l i ne coul d be cons t r ued as as s i s t i ng R ockybeca us e R ockyas s er t ed A l l en

### -40-

c a m e b yth e a p a rtm e n t ar o u n d 1 0 a .m . C o n v e rse ly , G ro g in s’ s tate m e n t d ire c tly under cut s R ocky ’ s ow n t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he eve nt s of t hatm or ni ng. R ocky cl ai m ed t hatw hen A l l en ca m e t o t he apa r t m ent , he and A l l en l eftt oget heri n t he St al l i ngs t r uck. G r ogi ns s t at ed s he s aw A l l en l eavi ng al one and di d not s ee Rocky a t all th a t m o rn in g . T h u s, G ro g in ’s in fo rm a tio n se e m s to p ro v id e m o re su p p o rt to A lle n ’s a c c o u n t o f

th e e v e n ts th a t m o rn in g th a n to R o c k y ’s . M or eover , w e ar e notconvi nced thateven i f t he G r ogi ns i nt er vi ew had been di s cl os ed t o t he defens e, “t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat. . . t he r es ul t of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” B agl ey , 4 7 3 U .S . a t 6 8 2 . T he j ur yhad befor e i t t he uncont es t ed t es t i m onyof H i ggenbot ham w ho s t at ed he w or ked w i t h A l l en betw een 10: 30 and 11 a. m . t hatm or ni ng, as w el l as H ol t w ho t es t i fi ed he obs er ved R ockyl eavi ng t he St al l i ngs y ar d i n a companyt r uck s om et i m e af

t er10 a. m . H i ggenbot ham t es t i fi ed t hathe w entt o t he bank t o cas h a per s onal chec k aft erhe l eftt he St al l i ngs y ar d, atw hi ch t i m e he he ar d bank s t aff di s cus s i ng a cr i m e j us t comm i t t ed att he fl ea mar ket . H ol t t es t i fi ed he a r r i ved at t he St al l i ngs y ar d ar ound 10 a. m . t o col l ecthi s w or k chec k. H e s ai d t hathe s aw R ockyas he w as ar r i vi ng. H ol t obt ai ned hi s chec k, chat t ed i n t he companyoffi ce fora w hi l e w i t h s om e ot herSt al l i ngs empl oy ees , and t hen w entt o an es t abl i s hm entneart he fl ea mar kett o cas h hi s chec k. W hi l e he w as t her e, he h e a rd s ir e n s a n d s a w a n a m b u la n c e d ri v e b yin th e d ir e c tio n o f th e fle a m a rk e t.

### -41-

W hen he f

i ni s hed hi s fi nanci al t r ans act i on, he not i ced thatt he entr ance t o t he fl ea m a rk e t h a d b e e n c lo s e d o ff a n d w a s s u rr o u n d e d b ye m e rg e n c yv e h ic le s . H ig g e n b o th a m ’s a n d H o lt’s re c o llec tio n s o f th a t m o rn in g a re firm ly anchor ed byt hei r r emem br ance of cont empora r yconver s at i ons or obs er vat i ons of event s di r ect l yconnec t ed t o t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es . T hus , i t had t o be s oon aft er 1 0 :47 a.m . , the tim e the p o li ce w ere ca ll ed to the flea m ark et, w h en H o lth ea rd s i r ens and s aw an ambul ance w hi l e he w as cas hi ng hi s chec k. L i kew i s e, w hen H i ggenbot ham hear d empl oy ees att he bank di s cus s i ng t he r ece nt comm ot i on at t he fl ea mar ket , i t w oul d have be en s om et i m e af t er11 a. m . , as H i ggenbot ham t es t i fi ed. C ont r ar yt o t hi s evi dence , t he j ur yhear d R ockyt es t i fyt hathi s br ot her pi cked hi m up ar ound 10 a. m . R ockycl ai m ed thataft erR ockyand A l l en arr i ved att he St al l i ngs y ar d, t heyunl oaded the t r uck, s t ood ar ound and cha t t ed for per haps as l ong as t w ent ym i nut es , and w or ked on a c oupl e of tr ucks . T hen, a c c o rd in g to R o c k y ’s r e v ise d tes tim o n y , A llen lef t th e w o rk y a rd p e rh a p s te n to fi ft een mi nut es aft ert heyar r i ved and r etur ned ar ound 10: 45 or 10: 47 a. m . R ocky cl ai m s he l eftt he St al l i ngs y ar d i n t he bur ntor ange tr uck ar ound 11 a. m . , noddi ng t o ot herSt al l i ngs empl oy ees as he w as l eavi ng. W e w oul d have t o i nt erpr ett he G r ogi ns i nfor m at i on as s ugges t i ng t hatw hen A l l en al l egedl yl eftt he w or k y ar d, he r etur ned t o t he apa r t m ent , w entt o t he fl ea mar ketand murde r ed B us h and

### -42-

as s aul t ed N ew l and, fl ed t he fl ea mar keti n a di r ect i on t aki ng hi m aw ayfr om t he S t al l i ng s y ard, bu t no nethel ess r et urned to t he y ard i n ti m e t o assi st H i ggenbot ham som et i m e betw een 10: 30 and 11 a. m . and t hen tur n t he t r uck over to R o c k y . T h is p ro ffe re d tim e lin e a ttem p ts to o m u c h a n d c a n n o t b e sq u a re d w ith t he fir m l ygroun ded t est i m on yof H oltand H i gg enb otham . In t hese ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnot concl ude t he abs ence of G r ogi ns ’ i nfor m at i on u n d e rm in e s o u r c o n fid e n c e in th e o u tc o m e o f R o c k y ’s p ro c e e d in g . K yl es , 514 U . S . at 43 4. T he st at e cou rt ’s res olut i on of R ock y ’s B r ady cl ai m on t hi s i s s ue w as n o t an u n rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n o f S u p rem e C o u rtlaw . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d). R ockyal s o cont ends t he s t at e vi ol at ed B r ady byfai l i ng t o di s cl os e t he m annerbyw hi ch t he pol i ce pr ocur ed C ampbel l ’ s t es t i m ony . A s di s cus s ed above , C ampbel l t es t i fi ed att r i al t haton D ece m ber10, s he w as dr i nki ng att he Zodi ac Ba r . S h e c l a i me d Ro c k yc a me i n t o t h e b a r a n d c o n fe s s e d t o h e r t h a t h e k i l l e d t wo peopl e i n A da and ne eded t o gethi s hai r cutbeca us e i t s m el l ed l i ke bl ood. She al so t est i fi ed thatshe had no t been t hreat ened t o p rovi de h er t est i m on y . D efen se couns el vi gor ous l ycr os s - exami ned C ampbel l , and couns el pr es ent ed w i t nes s es w ho pl ace d R ockyel s ew her e on t he ni ght of D ece m ber10. D ur i ng R ocky ’ s di r ect ap p ea l, C am p b ell w as in terview ed an d affirm ed the v era cit yan d u n co erc ed n ature of t he s t at ement s s he had made atR ocky ’ s t r i al . B ut i n 1997, C ampbel l r eca nt ed hert r i al and di r ectappea l s t at ement s . I n an affi davi t , C ampbel l s t at ed t hatabout

### Campbe l ll at e rl e arne d McNe e lus wa s t api ng the i rc onve r s at i on. Roc ky 26 

### contends the t ape r ec ording of the c on vers at ion w as withheld bythe s tate , consti tuti ng a Bradyv io latio n . R o ckyf irst raisedth is claiminh is state applic at ion f

or po st -c on vict ion rel ie f. Th e OCC A d ee m ed the c la imwaived because dir ec t app ea l c ounselcould h ave r ai se d it but did n ot. The federal di s tri c tc ourtc onduc t e d an ana l y s i s on the m e ri t s and c onc lude d the t ape wa s not withheld. W e are no t c on vinced the t ape was m ade avail able to defense counsel duri ng tri a l , butwe none the l e s s c onc lude the m at e ri a lon the t ape wa s not ex cu lp ato ryto R o cky . L ik e th e d istrict co urt, w e listen edto th e tap e an df o un dit ex trem ely di ffi c ul tt o unde r s t and. No tr ans c ripta c c ompani e d the t ape , and the voi c e s on the t ape, m anyof

wh ic h cle arlydid n ot belong to McNeelus or Campb el l, ar e un identi fied. Moreover, bas ed onwh atwe were able t o d is ce rn fromthe t ape, n o th in g M cN eelu s o r C amp b ell say s is ex cu lp ato ry . M cN eelu s is certain ly p ro activ e durin g h er co nv ersatio nw ithC amp b ell, steerin g th e d iscu ssio nto Ro cky ’s impend ing tri aland h is al le ged con fess ion to C ampb el l at the Zo diac bar. Ho wever, wh en qu es ti on ed byMcNeelus abou t what happened o n D ec ember 10, Campbe l lne ve rs pe c i fi c a l l ys ay s thatthe m an wa s notRoc ky , nordoe s s he (co ntinu ed ...)

-43- a w eek be for e R ocky ’ s t r i al , M cN eel us expr es s ed fe ar s t hatA l l en w as goi ng t o be ar r es t ed fort he fl ea mar ketcr i m es . C ampbel l admi t t ed s he t ol d M cN eel us t hat s he w as i n t he Zodi ac Bar on D ece m ber10 and t hata man came up t o heri n t he b a r a n d to ld h e r h e h a d c o m m itt e d th e flea m a rk e t cr im e s. C a m p b e ll sa id M cN eel us w as ver yi nt er es t ed i n w hats he had t o s ayand as ked i f t he man w as R o c k y . C a m p b e ll sa id sh e “ h a d n o t se e n R o c k yin a lo n g tim e , b u t th e m a n c o u ld h a v e b e e n R o c k yS n o w .” F e d . H C , rec ., v o l. III, do c . 1 4 , it e m H . C a m p b e ll cl ai m ed t hatl at ert he s ame eveni ng, s he and M cN eel us had anotherconver s at i on i n w hi ch M cN eel us appea r ed t o be ac t i ng s t r ange a nd as ked C ampbel l t o r epea t w hat s he had s ai d i n t hei r ear l i er conver s at i on. 26

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 26 

### c orr e c tMcNe e lus whe n McNe e lus c ons i s t e nt l ya s ks aboutwhatRoc kys a i d or w h at h e w as w earin g th at n ig h t. Inresp o n se to M cN eelu s’ qu estio n s, C amp b ell i ndi c at e s , wi thouts pe c i fi c a l l ys ayi ng “ Roc kys a i d . . . , ” thatRoc kyc onfe s s e d he k illedth e p eo p le at th e f lea m ark et an dth at h e n eed edto g et h is h air cut b ecau se it sm elledlik e b lo o d . S h e also statedth at R o ckysaid“h e d idit.” F ed . H C , rec., vol . VI , doc . 23. Campbe l l ’ s t ape d s t at e m e nt s ar e ne ar l yi de nt i c a lt o thos e s he m ad e at trial. We are th eref o re unp ersu ad edth is in f o rm atio nis ex cu lp ato ryto R o c ky.

-44- A ccor di ng t o C ampbel l ’ s aff i davi t , atappr oxi m at el y3 a. m . t he fol l ow i ng m or ni ng, A da pol i ce a r r es t ed heras a mat er i al w i t nes s and hel d herfor ques t i oni ng. T he pol i ce w oul d not l ethercal l any one t o t ake c ar e of he r dau gh t er, bu t i nst ead m ade h er t ake h er chi l d to a y ou t h shelt er. T he p oli ce al so a lle g e d ly to ld h e r s h e c o u ld n o t c a ll a la w y e r u n til s h e h a d s p o k e n w ith th e m . “Theyt ol d [her ] t hati f [s he] di d not t el l t hem w hatt heyw ant ed t o hear , t hey w oul d l eave [her ] i n j ai l and t ake [ her ] l i t t l e gi r l aw ayfr om [her . ] ” Id. T he pol i ce a ccus ed C ampbel l of w i t hhol di ng s t at e’ s evi dence and s t at ed “thatt hey coul d keep [ her ] i n j ai l unt i l [s he] t ol d t hem t he s t or y[s he] had t ol d J eanni e. ” Id. C ampbel l al s o as s er t s t he pol i ce s how ed hera phot ogr aph of Rockyand t hats he t ol d t hem “t he man i n t he pi ctur e w as not t he man [she ] s aw i n t he Z odi ac. ” Id. She “t ol d t he off i cer s t he man [she ] s aw di d not have a s carand had s andybr ow n hai r r at hert han dar k br ow n hai r . [She] t ol d t he off i cer s [s he] w as pos i t i ve t he man [she ] s aw i n t he Zodi ac w as not R ockySnow . ” Id. A c c o rd in g to C ampbel l , t he pol i ce di d notcar e and t ol d hers he w as l y i ng. She cl ai m s t he

### -45-

offi cer s t ol d hers he “ha d al r eadys ai d i t w as R ockySnow once, and t hati f [s he] di d not s ayi t agai n, t heyw oul d put [her ] i n j ai l and t ake [ her ] l i t t l e gi r l . ” Id . An o ffice r a lso to ld h e r sh e “ m ig h t n e v e r g e t [ h e r] littl e g irl b a c k if [ sh e ] h a d to g o to j ai l and w as convi ct ed of w i t hhol di ng s t at e’ s evi dence . ” Id. C a m p b e ll t h e n w ro te a sta tem e n t at th e d ire c tio n o f th e p o lice . S h e c laim s th e p o lice to ld h e r e x a c tly w hatt o w r i t e. C ampbel l as s er t s i n t he affi davi t t hats he has “fe l t gui l t yfor al m os t t en y ear s forl y i ng and ca us i ng R ockySnow t o go t o pr i s on. ” Id. S h e d id not t el l t he t r ut h beca us e s he w as afr ai d of l os i ng herdaught erand s car ed A l l en m igh t harm h er. Sh e c lai m s sh e is w il li n g to “testi fy o r do w h atev er is ne ce ssary t o t el l t hi s s t or yt o w hoeverneeds t o heari t . ” Id . R o c k yc o n ten d s th a t h a d d e fe n se c o u n se l k n o w n C a m p b e ll w a s a lleg e d ly c o e rc e d in to g iv in g h e r te stim o n y , the re w o u ld h a v e b e e n a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th e o u tc o m e o f

h is tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. B agl ey , 473 U . S. at682; B anks , 54 F. 3d at1519. T he O C C A r ej ect ed R ocky ’ s ar gum entt hatC ampbel l had b e e n c o e rc e d , n o tin g th a t a t tr ia l a n d d u ri n g d ir e c t a p p e a l s h e a tte s te d o th e rw is e . T h e c o u rtalso rejected R o ck y ’s claim that C am p b ell h ad li ed at t ri al. In cons i der i ng t he ent i r e r ecor d as a w hol e, t he s t at e cour t concl uded t hat i nfor m at i on r egar di ng C ampbel l ’ s al l eged l y i ng w oul d not have r es ul t ed i n a d iffe re n t o u tc o m e a t R o c k y ’s tr ia l. T he s t at e cour t ’ s r ul i ng w as not an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of es t abl i s hed

### -46-

S u p re m e C o u rt a u th o rity . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). F irst, th e o n lyp o ten tially re lev a n t B r ady m aterial the s tat e c o u ld h av e turn ed o v er in term s o f C am p b ell ’s test im o n yat t h e ti m e o f tri al w as h an d w ri tt en p o li ce n o tes reg ard ing C am p b ell ’s ar r es t and i ni t i al pol i ce i nt er vi ew . T hos e not es w oul d have i ndi cat ed t haton J une 13, 1989, M cN eel us engage d i n a t aped c onver s at i on w i t h C ampbel l r egar di ng R ocky ’ s al l eged D ece m ber10 confe s s i on att he Zodi ac ba r . M cN eel us t hen provided p oli ce w i t h the t ape, aft er w hich t he p oli ce ob t ai ned a m at eri al w i t ness w ar r antt o ar r es t C ampbel l . C ampbel l w as ar r es t ed at3 a. m . t he fol l ow i ng m or ni ng and ques t i oned bypol i ce. A ccor di ng t o t he not es , C ampbel l t ol d o ffi c e r s t h a t s h e . . . wa s g l a d J e a n n i e M c Ne e l u s t o l d l a we n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs a b o u t th e ir c o n v e rsa tio n re g a rd in g R o c k yD a le Snow . [C ampbel l ] advi s ed off i cer s . . . s he had w or r i ed gr eat l yabout w h a t sh e . . . w a s to ld b yR o c k yD a le S n o w a n d b e in g sc a re d to tell any one due t o t he t hr eatR ockyD al e Snow m ade t o her. . . on D ece m ber10, 1988. F e d . H C , rec ., v o l. III, do c . 1 4 , it e m D D . T h e re is n o th in g e x c u lp a to rya b o u t th is re p o rt.M or eover , even a s s um i ng C ampbel l l i ed aboutR ocky ’ s confe s s i on, our c o n fid e n c e in th e o u tc o m e o f R o c k y ’s tr ia l is n o t u n d e rm in e d . B agl ey , 47 3 U. S. a t 6 8 2 . A t trial, C a m p b e ll w a s v ig o ro u slyc ro ss -e x a m in e d b yd e fe n se c o u n se l, rai si ng greatdo ub t s as t o the veraci t yof h er t est i m on y . S i m i l arl y , defe nse couns el pr es ent ed K l i ftand Scofi el d as w i t nes s es w ho fur t herunder m i ned C a m p b e ll’s c re d ib ili tya n d p lac e d R o c k ye lse w h e re o n th e e v e n in g C a m p b e ll

### -47-

c laim s h e c o n fe ss e d to h e r a t th e Z o d iac b a r. N e ith e r w itn e ss w a s s u bjec ted to s i gni fi cantcr os s - exami nat i on byt he s t at e. C ampbel l ’ s cr edi bi l i t yw as t hus pl ace d squarel ybefo re the jur y . T he O C C A ’s rej ect i on of R ock y ’s B r ady c laim r egar di ng C ampbel l ’ s s ubs equentaff i davi t w as not an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of Supr eme C our t l aw . R ockycan l i kew i s e fi nd no r el i ef i n hi s cl ai m r egar di ng t he l ost videot aped po l i ce i nter view s. In t he co urse of i nv est i gati ng t he case ag ai nst R ocky , t he pol i ce i nt er vi ew ed a number of w i t nes s es and vi deot aped s om e of th o se in ter v iew s. R o c k yc laim s th e sta te lo st th e v id e o tap e s, w h ich h e a ss e rts c o n ta in e x c u lp a to ry a n d m a te ri a l e v id e n c e . T he O C C A app ears t o h ave ad dress ed thi s B r ady c laim o n lyin re latio n to t he undi s cl os ed i nfor m at i on i n an O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew w i t h A l l en, w hi ch i ncl uded a vi deot ape of

t he i nt er vi ew , al t hough R ocky ’ s pet i t i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on re lie f w a s n o t s o lim ite d . See S tate P C P e t., Ju ly2 4 , 1 9 9 5 , at 5 3 . T h e sta te c o u rt, w i t hout expl i ci t l ycomm ent i ng on w het herR ocky ’ s vi deot ape a r gum entw as pr ocedur al l ybar r ed, s um m ar i l yr ej ect ed t he cl ai m , s t at i ng R ocky“di s cl os e[d] no i nfor m at i on r egar di ng t he vi deot aped i nt er vi ew t o s how t hati t i s excul pat or yor t hati t cont ai ns new l ydi s cover ed evi dence . ” Snow , PC 97- 1350 at5- 6. T he fede r al di s t r i ctcour t al s o gave thi s ar gum entpas s i ng r efe r ence , s t at i ng R ocky “has fai l ed t o s ubm i t anyevi dence t hat. . . anyof t he vi deot apes of t he var i ous i nt er vi ew s . . . w er e exc ul pat or y . ” Fed. H C , r ec. , vol . V I I , doc. 38 at62.

### -48-

Supr eme C our t aut hor i t ym akes cl eart hatw hen dea l i ng w i t h l os t or d estroy ed ev iden ce , “u n less a c ri m inal d efen d an t can sh o w b ad fa ith o n the p art of t he pol i ce, fai l ur e t o pr es er ve pot ent i al l y us ef ulevi dence does not cons t i t ut e a deni al of due pr oces s of l aw . ” A r iz ona v. Youngbl ood , 488 U . S. 51, 58 ( 1988) ( emphasi s added) . I n t hi s s et t i ng, t he C our t has not ed “the di ffi cul t yof devel opi ng r ul es t o deal w i t h evi dence des t r oy ed t hr ough pr os ecut or i al negl ector o v e rsig h t. W h e n e v e r p o ten tiallye x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e is p e rm a n e n tlylo st, c o u rts fa ce the trea ch ero u s task o f d ivining the im p o rto f m aterial s w h o se c o n tents are unknow n and, ver yoft en, di s put ed. ” C a lif o rn ia v . Tro m b e tta , 467 U . S. 479, 486 ( 1984) . T he C our t t her efor e i m pos ed t he r equi r ement t hatt he defendants how bad fai t h on t he par t of t he pol i ce w hen pot ent i al l yexcul pat or yevi dence i s l os t or d e s tr o y e d . Youngbl ood , 4 8 8 U .S . a t 5 8 . See als o Uni t ed St at es v. F l et cher , 801 F. 2d 1222, 1224- 25 ( 10t h C i r . 1986) ( “A bs entevi dence of pol i ce orpr os ecut or i al bad fa i t h or m i s conduct , [r el i ef i s ] w ar r ant ed onl yi f t he mi s s i ng evi dence pos s es s es an exc ul pat or yval ue t hatw as appar entbefor e t he evi dence w as dest roy ed. ”). R ock ypresent s, at m ost , a con cl usoryargum ent that the lost vi deot apes m i ght have c ont ai ned exc ul pat or ym at er i al . Fur t her m or e, he t akes no s peci fi c pos t ur e as t o w het hert he t apes w er e l os tas a r es ul t of bad fai t h byt he pol i ce orpr os ecut or s . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , R ockyi s not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef o n th is c laim

### -49-

M or eover , w e ar e notconvi nced Rockycan s ucce ed on anyof hi s ot her B r ady claim s. R o ck yco n tend s the stat e fail ed to d iscl o se a n u m b er o f O . S . B . I. report s det ai l i ng i nter view s cond uced by t he A da P oli ce D epart m ent i n the cou rs e o f in v e stig a tin g th e flea m a rk e t cr im e s. H e a rg u e s th e in fo rm a tio n c o n tain e d in tho se re p o rt s is ex cu lpato ryan d m aterial . In p arti cu lar, h e p o ints t o O . S . B . I. in ter v iew s w ith A llen , as w e ll as w ith C ro ss a n d D u n c a n . T h e O C C A rejec ted a ll of t hes e cl ai m s as pr ocedur al l ybar r ed bec aus e t heycoul d have be en r ai s ed on di r ectappea l but w er e not . T he di s t r i ctcour t ul t i m at el yr ej ect ed t he cl ai m s on t hei r m er i t s , es s ent i al l yconcl udi ng t hatt he w i t hhel d i nfor m at i on w as not m a te ri a l. W e c a n a v o id d e c id in g p ro c e d u ra l b a r q u e stio n s w h e re c laim s c a n re a d ily b e d is m is s e d o n th e m e ri ts . C annon , 383 F. 3d at1159. R ockyr eas s er t s m anyof th e se iss u e s a s p a rt o f h is c laim o f

in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f a p p e llate c o u n se l in an att em pt t o clearany proced ural bar t hat m ayexis t by his fai l ure t o rai se t hese c la im s o n a p p e a l. See Mur r ay v. C ar r i er , 477 U . S. 478, 489- 90 ( 1986) ( cl ai m of in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f a p p e llate c o u n se l ca n se rv e a s c a u se a n d p reju d ice to o v erc o m e p roc ed u ral ba r); Johns on v. G i bs on , 1 6 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 5 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( s a m e ). T h u s , w e m u s t a d d re s s th e m e ri ts o f th e s e c la im s in a n ye v e n t. R ockycl ai m s t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n t he O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew not es of A ll en d iffe red sign ifi ca n tl yfro m the testi m o n yA ll en p rov ided at t ri al. In

### I n the a ffi davi tforRoc ky ’ s arr e s twarr ant , dat e d De c e mbe r12, 1988, 27 

### p o lice d etailedA llen ’s reco llectio no f ev en ts th e m o rn in g o f

D ecemb er 8 . Inth is acco unt, A llenstatedth at so m etim e b etw een9 an d9 :3 0 a.m ., h e lef t w o rkto r e turnt o h i s ap artm e ntt o w ak e R o c ky.

- 50- par t i cul ar , A l l en di d not m ent i on i n hi s O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew t hathe l eftt he S tallin g s y a rd to g o h o m e a n d w a k e R o c k y , an d th e in ter v iew n o tes a lso sta te A l l en l eftforw or k at7 a. m . A t R ocky ’ s pr el i m i nar yhear i ng, A l l en t es t i fi ed he w entt o w ake hi s br ot hers om et i m e betw een 8: 30 and 9 a. m . , Pr el i m . H ear i ng, A pr i l 10, 1989 at126, and t hathe al s o l eftt he St al l i ngs y ar d t o getpar t s on t hat d a y . Id. a t 1 2 7 . A t tr ia l, A lle n s a id h e a w o k e a n d le f t fo r w o rk a ro u n d 6 a .m ., 27 a n d re tu rn e d to th e a p a rtm e n t ar o u n d 9 a .m . to w a k e h is b ro th e r. R o c k ya ss e rts th a t th e in c o n sis ten c ies in A llen ’s r e c o llec tio n o f e v e n ts c o u ld h a v e se rv e d to i m peac h A l l en’ s t r i al t es t i m onyand fur t hert he defens e’ s t heor yt hatA l l en, r at her th a n R o c k y , w a s re s p o n s ib le fo r t h e fle a m a rk e t c ri m e s . I m peac hm entevi dence i s excul pat or yforB r ady p u rp o s e s . B agl ey , 473 U .S . a t 6 7 6 . S e e a lso Nap u e v . Ill in o is , 360 U . S. 264, 269 ( 1959) ( convi ct i on b a se d o n fa lse tes tim o n yn o t co rre c ted b yth e sta te v io late s F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t); A l cor t a v. Texas , 355 U . S. 28, 31- 32 ( 1957) ( convi ct i on bas ed on t es t i m onyknow n bypr os ecut or t o be fa l s e vi ol at es a defendant ’ s r i ght t o due p ro c e ss ). A lth o u g h A llen d id n o t tell th e p o lice h e re tu rn e d to th e a p a rtm e n t to w a k e R o c k y , w e a re n o t co n v in c e d th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e re su lt

### It is n o t en tirelyclear th at th is in f o rm atio nw as w ithh eldb yth e state. 28 

### Ro ckycl ai m s the O.S.B.I. inte rvie w w ith A ll en was not disc lose d, bu t he has pres ente d n o evidence veri fying this a ss erti on . I nd ee d, tria l c ounselsubm itte d an affidavit i n sup po rtof

Ro cky ’s st at e habeas proceedi ng in wh ic h counsel i ndi c at e d he di d notr e c e i ve O. S. B. I . r e port s of Gr ogi ns , Dunc an, orCr os s , buthe d idn o t ref

er to anyo th er un d isclo sedO .S .B .I. rep o rts. See F ed . H C , rec., v o l. I I I , doc . 14, i t e mBB .

- 51- of R ocky ’ s t r i al w oul d have be en di ffe r enti f t he O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew of A l l en had b e e n d is c lo s e d to th e d e fe n s e . B agl ey , 4 7 3 U .S . at 6 8 2 ; B anks , 54 F. 3d at1519. 28 R o c k y ’s o w n te s tim o n yw a s th a t A lle n re tu rn e d to th e a p a rt m e n t th a t m o rn in g . T h e o n lyrelev an t i n co n sist en cies tha t existed o n this i ssu e w ere b etw ee n R o ck y ’s p roffe red ti m ing o f e v en ts an d h is asserti o n that h e re turn ed to the S tal li n g s y ard w i t h A l l en, and A l l en’ s cl ai m t hathe mer el yw entt o t he apa r t m entt o w ake R o c k y . T h e in ter v iew n o tes o f A llen w e re n o t h e lp f u l to R o c k yo n th is p o in t. R ockyal s o cl ai m s i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n t he O . S. B . I . r epor t s fr om i nt er vi ew s w i t h C r os s and D uncan w as excul pat or yand mat er i al . C r os s w as pr egnantw i t h R ocky ’ s chi l d, and R ockyi nfor m ed C r os s j us t pr i or t o t he fl ea m ar ketcr i m es t hathe w as nei t herabl e t o, nor i nt er es t ed i n, s uppor t i ng herand t he chi l d. H e al s o w as cur r ent l ydat i ng K l i ft . I n t he undi s cl os ed O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew not es , C r os s des cr i bed R ockyas a w hi t e mal e abouts i x fee t t al l , w ei ght about160 pounds , and he ha d bl ue ey es and bl ond hai r . R ockyhad dy ed hi s hai r dar ker , but he had re c e n tlyg o t a s p ik e h a irc u t an d th a t cu t m o st o f th e c o lo r o ff

h is h a ir i n fron t . H i s hai r w as abou t coll ar l eng t h in t he b ack an d itw as a lit tle d a rk e r th a n th e f ro n t.

### - 52-

F e d . H C , rec ., v o l. III, do c . 1 4 , it e m D . C ro ss a lso a c k n o w led g e d sh e sp o k e w ith A l l en s oon aft ert he fl ea mar ketcr i m es and compl ai ned abouthow R ockyw as t r eat i ng her . A l l en al l egedl yt ol d hert hatt he pol i ce w er e i nves t i gat i ng R ockyand t hatC r os s coul d t ur n hi m i n. D ur i ng t he O . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew , t he pol i ce s how ed C r os s t he composi t e dr aw i ng cr eat ed byPr at t . C r os s comm ent ed t hatt he dr aw i ng l ooked l i ke R ocky . H ow ever , s he not ed R ockyhad a s caroverhi s l eftey e, but t hat“t he s carw as not not i cea bl e ata di s t ance . ” Id. D u n c a n w a s C ro s s ’s f ri e n d a n d h a d k n o w n R o c k yfo r a c o u p le o f m o n th s . She t ur ned R ockyi nt o t he pol i ce a ft erdeci di ng t he composi t e i m age l ooked l i ke hi m . I n herO . S. B . I . i nt er vi ew , s he cl ai m ed R ockyus ed t o have l ong bl eac hed h a ir th a t w a s a lm o st w h ite b lo n d b u t th a t “a ro u n d D e c e m b e r 5 , 1 9 8 8 , [h e ] h a d h is hai r cutand cha nged t o i t s natur al col or of l i ght br ow n. ” Id. D uncan w as not p a rt ic u la rl yfo n d o f

R o c k yb e c a u s e s h e d id n o t lik e h o w h e w a s tr e a tin g C ro s s . S he affi rm ed thatshe, C ross , and A l l en h ad h ad a co nv ers at i on abo ut how C ross co u ld “g et ba ck ” a t R o ck y , d u ri n g w h ich A ll en h ad su g g ested they co u ld turn R o c k yin to th e p o lic e . Id. R o ck yh as n o t po inted to an y thing in either D u n ca n ’s or C ross ’ O . S . B . I. i nt er vi ew r epor t s t hatcan be deemed excul pat or yor m at er i al . D uncan’ s and C ross ’ st atem en ts th at R o ck yloo k ed li k e the m an in the co m p o sit e im ag e is m o re in c u lp a to ryth a n e x c u lp a to ry , an d th e w o m e n ’s s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g R o c k y ’s h a ir

### - 53-

ar e har dl yexcul pat or y . D uncan’ s t es t i m onyt hatR ockyhad hi s hai r cutar ound D e c e m b e r 5 p ro v id e s o n lyth e lim ited in fo rm a tio n th a t af ter R o c k yh a d h is h a ir cut , hi s hai r col or w as a natur al l i ght br ow n r athert han t he w hi t e bl ond hai r he had w or n pr evi ous l y . C r os s s t at ed R ocky ’ s hai r w as col l arl engt h i n t he bac k and a l i t t l e dar keri n t he fr ont . T hi s des cr i pt i on does not s i gni fi cant l ydepar t fr om h o w tr ia l w itn e s s e s N e w la n d , R u s s e ll, S c o fie ld , a n d J o n e s d e s c ri b e d R o c k y . F in a lly , ev e n if

A llen d id tell C ro ss a n d D u n c a n th e yc o u ld tu rn R o c k yin to th e p o lice to “ g e t b a c k a t” h im fo r tre a tin g C ro ss p o o rly , an d e v e n if th is i nfor m at i on had bee n di s cl os ed t o t he defens e pr i or t o t r i al , w e ar e notper s uaded “t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat. . . t he r es ul t of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have been di ffe r ent . ” B agl ey , 473 U . S. at682. A t m os t , t hi s i nfor m at i on m i ght fur t her R ocky ’ s ar gum entt hatt her e exi s t ed ani m os i t ybet w een hi m and hi s br ot hert hat m igh t hav e led A ll en to im p li ca te R o ck yin the flea m ark et crim es. B u t th e jury hear d evi dence of s t r i fe be t w een the br ot her s t hr ough R ocky ’ s t es t i m onyand t hat of K l i ftand M i l l er . M or eover , anyi m pl i cat i on of fe s t er i ng enmi t ybet w een A l l en a n d R o c k yw a s u n d e rc u t b yR o c k y ’s o w n tes tim o n yth a t h e w a s liv in g w ith h is br ot heri n A da and thatt heyw entdr i nki ng and C hr i s t m as s hoppi ng and at t ended a m o v ie to g e th e r. T h e fa c t th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l w a s n o t p ro v id e d a c c e ss to D uncan’ s and C r os s ’ “getback a t ” comm ent s does not under m i ne ourconfi dence in th e o u tco m e o f

R o c k y ’s tria l. T h e ir “ g e t b a c k a t” s tate m e n ts d o n o t in d ica te in

### Onappeal , Rockyre qu es ts thathis c as e be r em anded to the distri ctcourt 29 

### f o r anev id en tiaryh earin g if h e is n o t en titledto d irect relief o nh is claim s. Pur s uantt o 28 U. S. C. § 2254( e ) ( 2) , i f ape t i t i one r“ ha s fa i l e d t o de ve l op the fa c tua lba s i s ” of hi s c l a i mi n s t at e c ourt , an e vi de nt i aryhe ari ng c an onl ybe pr ovi de d i n fe de r a lc ourti f he s at i s fi e s one of the two e xc e pt i ons l a i d outi n the s t atut e . Howe ve r , i f ape t i t i one rha s be e n di l i ge ntand att e mpt e d t o de ve l op the factual bas is of

his c la imin st at e c ourt , “ we m ayproceed t o con si der whether a hearing is app ropriate , or r equire d und erpre- AE DP A stand ards.” Millerv. Champi on , 1 6 1 F .3 d1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 3 (1 0 thC ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Roc kywa s di l i ge nti n de ve l opi ng the fa c tua lba s e s of hi s pos t - c onvi c t i on cl ai m s. When se eking such rel ie f f romthe Oklahom a c ourt s, he re qu es te d an e vi de nt i aryhe ari ng, whi c h wa s de ni e d. He pr ovi de d the s t at e c ourtnum e r ous af f id av its an do th er ev id en ce to sup p o rt h is claim s. See Ca n n o n v. M u llin , 383 F.3d11 52 , 117 7 (10 th Cir. 20 04 ) ( dili gence re qu ir es re qu es ti ng an evidenti ary h earin g as w ell as p resen tin g read ilyav ailab le ev id en ce to sup p o rt claim). T h eref o re, R o ckyw o u ldb e en titledto anev id en tiaryh earin g inf ed eral co urt “so l ong a s hi s a l l e gat i ons , i f true and notc ontr ave ne d bythe e xi s t i ng fa c tua lr e c or d, wo uld entit le himto habeas re li ef.” Miller , 1 6 1 F .3 dat 1 2 5 3 . Inm ak in g th is de t e rm i nat i on, we appl yde fe r e nc e pur s uantt o AEDPA t o anyde t e rm i nat i on on th e m erits b yth e O C C Ao f anyo f th ese claim s. See H

a m m o n v. Wa rd, 466 F. 3d 91 9, 92 8 ( 10 th C i r . 20 06 ) . As we di s c us s thr ou gh outthe bo dyof ourop i ni on , we are n o t p ersu ad edR o cky ’s alleg atio n s en title h imto h ab eas relief o neith er h is Str i c klandor Bradycl ai m s. Th er efore, we dec li ne to re m and f or an evidenti ary he ari ng.

- 54- anyw ayt hatt he ot heri nfor m at i on i n t hei r O . S. B . I . r epor t s w as unt r ue. I n l i ght of the abo ve, w e are not per suaded R ock yi s ent i t l ed to r el i ef on his B r ady cl ai m s. 29

IV Inef f ect i ve Ass is t ance of

Tri alC ouns el R ockyal s o cont ends hi s t r i al at t or neyw as i neffect i ve dur i ng t he

### - 55-

g u ilt/in n o c e n c e sta g e o f h is tria l. H e b a se s th is c laim o n c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to c h a llen g e th e in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n s m a d e b yN e w lan d a n d R u ss e ll; to re q u e st a cont i nuance aft erC ampbel l w as added a t t he l as t m i nut e as a w i t nes s fort he s t at e; t o obj ectt o t he s t at e’ s ent r yof i r r el evantevi dence ; and t o i nves t i gat e and pr es ent a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e to ra ise a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to h is g u ilt . I neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ar e exa m i ned undert he fa m i l i ar r ubr i c l ai d out byt he Supr eme C our t i n St r i ckland . “To est abl i s h i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , a pet i t i onerm us t pr ove t hatcouns el ’ s per for m ance w as cons t i t ut i onal l ydefi ci entand t hatcouns el ’ s defi ci entper for m ance pr ej udi ced the defe ns e, depr i vi ng t he pet i t i onerof a fai r t r i al w i t h a r el i abl e r es ul t . ” B oyd v. Ward , 179 F. 3d 904, 913 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng St r i ckland , 4 6 6 U. S. a t 6 8 7 ) . To sa tisf yth e d e ficie n c yp ro n g , R o c k ym u st s h o w h is a tto rn e y ’s p e rfo rm a n c e “ fe ll bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s , ” St r i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 8 , in t hatcouns el ’ s per for m ance w as not “w i t hi n t he r ange of compet ence demanded of at t or ney s i n cr i m i nal cas es . ” Id. at687. I n m aki ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, “t he Supr eme C our t admoni s hes us t o fr ee ouri nqui r yfr om ‘ t he di s t or t i ng effect s of hindsi gh t ’ byi nd ulgi ng i n a st rong p res um pti on cou nsel act ed reasonab l y . T hu s, couns el ’ s per for m ance w i l l not be dee m ed def i ci enti f i t ‘ m i ght be cons i der ed s ound t r i al s t r at egy . ’ ” Mayes v. G i bs on , 210 F. 3d 1284, 1288 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng St r i ckland , 4 6 6 U . S . at 68 9 ).

### - 56-

I n addr es s i ng St r i ckland ’ s pr ej udi ce pr ong, R ockym us t s how t hat“butfor couns el ’ s er r or s , t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hatt he r es ul t of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” B oyd , 179 F. 3d at914 ( ci t i ng St r i ckland , 466 U . S. at 694) . “The pr ej udi ce de fenda nt m us t demonst r at e i s byl es s t han a pr eponder ance o f th e e v iden ce : ‘ a d efen d an t nee d n o t sho w that co u n sel’s de ficien t con d u ct m o re l i kel yt han notal t er ed t he out come of t r i al . ’ ” F is herv. G i bs on , 282 F. 3d 1283, 1307 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng St r i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 3 ). See a lso Sal l ahdi n v. G i bs on , 275 F. 3d 1211, 1235 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( “To est abl i s h pr ej udi ce, [ d e fe n d a n t] m u st s h o w th a t, bu t fo r c o u n se l’s e rro rs, th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth 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 iffe re n t. A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility is a p ro b a b ility s u ffic ie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n fid e n c e in th e o u tc o m e .” ). I n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , “w e l ook att he t ot al i t yof t he evi dence , not j us t t he e v id e n c e h e lp f

u l to ” R o c k y . B oyd , 179 F. 3d at914. A . Fai l ur e t o chal l enge i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i ons R ockycont ends hi s at t or neyw as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o chal l enge the i nc o u rt id e n tific a tio n s p ro v id e d b yN e w lan d a n d R u ss e ll. H e a ss e rts th a t, pr io r to t r i al , couns el s houl d have s ought a mot i on t o s uppr es s t he i dent i fi cat i ons , or sh o u ld h a v e o bjec ted to th e ir in tro d u c tio n a t trial a n d re q u e ste d th e trial c o u rt to i ssue a cauti on aryi nst ruct i on t o the j uryregar ding t he u se of ey e w i t ness id e n tific a tio n e v id e n c e . R o c k yra ise d th e se c o n c e rn s o n d ire c t ap p e a l.

### - 57-

W hen a pr et r i al i dent i fi cat i on occur s underi m per m i s s i bl ys ugges t i ve ci r cumst ance s and t he i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i on of t he w i t nes s i s unr el i abl e, t he id e n tific a tio n s h o u ld b e e x c lu d e d . See G r ubbs v. Hannigan , 982 F. 2d 1483, 1489- 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); Un itedS ta tes v . A ig b e v b o lle , 7 7 2 F . 2 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 3 (10 th C ir . 1985) . H ow ever , w e ar e notr equi r ed t o s uppr es s a s ugges t i ve ort ai nt ed confr ont at i on i n and of i t s el f. “The t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s m us t be cons i der ed t o det er m i ne w het hers uffi ci enti ndepende nt bas i s fort he i dent i fi cat i on l eads one t o concl ude t hatt he i dent i fi cat i on i s r el i abl e. ” Uni t ed S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 605 F. 2d 495, 498 ( 10t h C i r . 1979) . H ence , “r el i abi l i t yi s t he l i nchpi n i n det er m i ni ng t he admi s s i bi l i t yof i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony . ” Mans on v. B ra th w a ite , 4 3 2 U .S . 9 8 , 1 1 4 (1 9 7 7 ). I n Nei lv. B igg ers , 409 U . S. 188 ( 1972) , t he Supr eme C our t l ai d out a s er i es o f fa c to rs to c o n s id e r i n d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a n in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n is re lia b le . T heyar e: t he oppor t uni t yof t he w i t nes s t o vi ew t he cr i m i nal att he t i m e of the cri m e, t he w i t ness’ deg ree of at t enti on , t he acc uracyof the w i t nesses’ pr i or des cr i pt i on of t he cr i m i nal , t he l evel of ce r t ai nt ydemonst r at ed byt he w i t nes s att he conf r ont at i on, and t he l engt h of t i m e betw een t he cr i m e and the conf r ont at i on. Id. at199- 200. T hes e fa ct or s m us t be w ei ghed aga i ns t “t he corr upt i ve effec t of a s ugges t i ve pr e- t r i al i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e t o det er m i ne w het hert he i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onys houl d have be en s uppr es s ed. ” G r ubbs , 982 F. 2d at1490

### - 58-

( ci t i ng A r chul et a v. K er by , 8 6 4 F .2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); Uni t ed St at es v. Thurs t on , 77 1 F . 2d 44 9, 45 3 (10th C i r. 19 85 )) . In so doing, a cou rtm ust ask w het her“underal l t he ci r cumst ance s of [t he] cas e, t her e i s ‘ a verys ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of i r r epar abl e mi s i dent i fi cat i on. ’ ” Mans on , 432 U . S. at116 ( quot i ng Si m m ons v. Uni t ed St at es , 3 9 0 U . S . 3 7 7 , 3 8 4 (19 6 8 )). Fol di ng t hi s anal y s i s i nt o an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , t he fi r s t ques t i on i s w het hert r i al couns el w as defi ci enther e forfai l i ng t o m ove for th e su p p re ss io n o f

th e in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n s. If so , the se c o n d q u e stio n is w hethert he fa i l ure t o take such acti on prej ud i ced R ock y , i . e. , w hether“t here i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , but forcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal er r or [] , t he r es ul t of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” St r i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 4 . In th is r egar d, R ockym us t s how “he w oul d l i kel yhave pr evai l ed on t he s uppr es s i on m o tio n a n d th a t, ha v in g p re v a iled , the re is a re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d th a t h e w o u ld not have be en convi ct ed. ” Thom as v. Var ner , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 4 9 1 , 5 0 2 (3rd C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O n di r ectappea l , t he O C C A r ej ect ed R ocky ’ s cl ai m t hathi s at t or neyw as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o s uppr es s or obj ectt o t he i n- cour t i dent i fi cat i ons . T he cour t s t at ed “de fens e couns el cr os s - exami ned t he w i t nes s es ext ens i vel yt o w eake n th e ir c re d ib ili ty . T h e fa ilu re to o bjec t ap p e a rs to b e trial s tra teg y . A s s u c h it cannotbe a gr ounds fora cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . ” Snow , 876 P. 2d at295 ( ci t i ng St r i ckland , 466 U . S. at694) . T he O C C A al s o acknow l edged

### - 59-

t ri al cou nsel fai l ed to r equ esta cauti on aryi nst ruct i on regar ding t he ey e w i t ness i dent i fi cat i ons , but hel d t her e coul d be no cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el on t hi s ques t i on unl es s t he fa i l ur e t o r eques t s uch an i ns t r uct i on r epr es ent ed a “ s ubs t ant i al vi ol at i on of [Rocky ’ s ] r i ght s . Such a vi ol at i on w i l l be found i f t her e i s a verys ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of m i s i dent i fi cat i on. ” Id. at295 (c itin g , in p a rt , Mans on , 432 U . S. at113) . I n t hi s r egar d, t he cour t det er m i ned N ew l and’ s and R us s el l ’ s i dent i fi cat i ons of R ockyw er e r el i abl e. C e rta in lyth e re liab ili tyo f th e in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n b yb o th N ew l und [ sic ] a n d R u ss e ll i s w e a k e n e d b yth e fa c t ea c h fa iled to i dent i fyt he appe l l anti n t he pol i ce l i ne- up. H ow ever , w her e t hi s fac t w as t ho rough l ybroug ht out by cross -exam i nati on , each w i t ness t es t i fi ed he i dent i fi ed appe l l anti n cour t bas ed on hi s m emoryfr om t he t i m e of the cr i m es , and t he j ur yw as pr oper l yi ns t r uct ed i t w as t he s ol e j udge as t o t he cr edi bi l i t yof t he w i t nes s es , and t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he i dent i fi cat i on as w el l , w e ca nnot s ayt her e i s a verys ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood t he w i t nes s es m i s i dent i fi ed th e a p p e llan t. Id. at295. I n addr es s i ng R ocky ’ s i dent i fi cat i on conce r ns r ai s ed i n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, t he di s t r i ctcour t hel d t he s t at e cour t ’ s deci s i on w as not contr ar yt o or an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of Supr eme C our t l aw . T he cour t s t at ed: T ri a l c o u n s e l’ s s tr a te g ys e e m s o b v io u s f ro m th e re c o rd . . . . Speci fi cal l y , defe ns e couns el s penta gr eatdeal of t i m e emphas i zi ng t hatt he ey ew i t nes s es w er e unabl e t o pi ck outt he pet i t i onerdur i ng a l i neup hel d w i t hi n a fe w day s of t he cr i m e. I n fac t , defe ns e couns el vigorousl ychall eng ed the vali dityof b oth t he ey ew i t nesses’ id e n tific a tio n s a t trial. . . . T h e trial tra n sc rip t lea v e s n o d o u b t in th is C our t ’ s m i nd t hatt r i al couns el ’ s s t r at egyw as an at t empt t o get

### - 60-

[R ocky ] acqui t t ed of thi s hor r endous cr i m e byar gui ng t he ey ew itn esse s fa il u re to ide n ti fy [R o ck y ] i n the lineu p , an d the fail u re t o not i ce the s caron [R ocky ’ s ] for ehea d, cr eat ed r eas onabl e doubtas to [ R o c k y ’s] g u ilt . Fed. H C , r ec. , vol . V I I , doc. 38 at17, 19. M or eover , t he di s t r i ctcour t w as not convi nced thos e i dent i fi cat i ons w oul d have be en s uppr es s ed eve n i f t r i al couns el had at t empt ed t o chal l enge them. T he cour t det er m i ned t hatdes pi t e t he su g g esti v en ess th at m igh t hav e e x ist ed in the co n text o f N ew land ’s an d R u ssell’ s id e n tific a tio n s o f

R o c k y , th o s e id e n tific a tio n s w e re n o n e th e le s s re lia b le . Id. at 20- 21. T he cour t t her efor e hel d “t he O kl ahoma C our t ’ s adj udi cat i on of t hi s i s s ue w a s n o t co n tra ryto , n o r a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt law to t he fa ct s of t hi s cas e. ” Id. at22. T he cour t s i m i l ar l ydet er m i ned t r i al couns el w as n o t d e fi c i e n t fo r fa i l i n g t o r e q u e s t a c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e ye w itn e s s te s tim o n y . Id. I t concl uded bys t at i ng t hat even i f t hi s cour t w er e t o s econd gue s s couns el ’ s conductand fi nd couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o chal l enge the i dent i fi cat i ons w as unr eas onabl e, based u po n the ove rw helm i ng ci rcum st anti al evidence ag ai nst [R ocky ] , t he ext ens i ve cr os s - exami nat i on of defens e couns el on t he e y e w itn e ss ’ d isc re p a n c ies a n d th e ju ryin stru c tio n s a s a w h o le, th is C o u rt d o e s n o t b e liev e th a t [ R o c k y ] h a s e sta b lish e d “ a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat , abs entt he err or s , t he fa ctfi nderw oul d have ha d a r eas onabl e doubtr es pect i ng gui l t . ” [ St r i ckland ,] 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 4 4 . A ccor di ngl y , [R ocky ] has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h pr ej udi ce a nd t her efor e, i s not ent i t l ed t o anyr el i ef. Id. a t 2 4 . W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t . E ven i f, i n our ow n i ndepende nt

### - 61-

j udgm ent , w e mi ght be i ncl i ned t o r eac h a di ffe r entr es ul t , w e ar e notconvi nced th a t th e O C C A ’s r e so lu tio n o f R o c k y ’s c laim o n th is iss u e w a s o bjec tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le p u rs u a n t to § 2 2 5 4 (d ). Mc L u c k ie , 3 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 2 . It i s c e rta in ly ar guabl e t hatt r i al couns el w as defi ci entforfai l i ng t o r ai s e s om e for m of o bje c tio n to N e w la n d ’s a n d R u s s e ll’ s id e n tific a tio n s . S e e , e .g ., Thom as , 428 F. 3d at500 ( fai l ur e t o s eek s uppr es s i on of s ugges t i ve i dent i fi cat i on not r eas onabl e t r i al stra teg y ); Tom l i n v. M yers , 3 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 -3 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (fa ilu re to obj ectt o i dent i fi cat i on occurr i ng dur i ng i l l egal l i neup w as unr eas onabl e t r i al stra teg y ); R odr iguez v. Young , 9 0 6 F . 2 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 6 0 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (att o rne y ’s pr offe r ed r eas ons forfai l i ng t o m ove t o s uppr es s i m per m i s s i bl ys ugges t i ve iden ti fica ti o n n o t sufficien t t o b e d ee m ed rea so n ab le t ri al st rateg y ). B u t w e a re not per s uaded a nys uch obj ect i on or m ot i on t o s uppr es s w oul d have be en s u c c e s s f u l. W ith o u t c le a ri n g th is fir s t h u rd le , s ee Thom as , 428 F. 3d at502, R o c k yc a n n o t s h o w h e s u ffe re d p reju d ic e a s a re s u lt o f h is a tto rn e y ’s a c tio n s . A s n o ted b yth e O C C A o n d ire c t ap p e a l, i f d e fe n se c o u n se l h a d o bjec ted to th e e y e w itn e ss id e n tific a tio n s, th e trial c o u rt w o u ld h a v e c o n d u c ted a h e a rin g to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e id e n tific a tio n s w e re re lia b le . Snow , 8 6 7 P . 2 d at 25 5 . In s uch a he ar i ng, couns el w oul d have pr es um abl ychal l enged N ew l and’ s and

### D urin g R o cky ’s p relim in aryh earin g , d ef en se co un sel rig o ro u slycro ss- 30 

### e xam i ne d Ne wl and and Rus s e l la s t o the r e l i abi l i tyof the i ri de nt i fi c at i on of R o cky , h ig h lig h tin g th eir f ailure to id en tif

yh iminth e lin e-up , th eir in atten tio nto h is scar, an dth eir v iew in g o f th e A d a n ew sp ap er articles. See gen era lly , P r e l i m. Hearing, Ap ri l 10, 19 89 , at 16-64 . Des pite this te stim on y , the tria l c ourt dete rmined ther e was prob able cause t o b el ie ve Ro ckycomm itte d the crim es ch arg edag ain st h im . I d. at284.

- 62- R us s el l ’ s i dent i fi cat i ons of R ocky i n m uch t he s ame w ay he di d at t r i al . T her e, 30 c o u n se l ch a llen g e d N e w lan d a n d R u ss e ll t o e x p lain h o w th e yh a d fa iled to i dent i fyR ockyi n t he l i ne- up but w er e nonethel es s abl e t o i dent i fyhi m a fe w m ont hs l at erdur i ng t he pr e- t r i al hear i ng. I n s o doi ng, couns el es t abl i s hed t hat n e ith e r w itn e ss re m e m b e re d th e a ss a ilan t h a d a sc a r o v e r h is le f t eye; th a t R u ss e ll neverl ooked t he as s ai l antdi r ect l yi n t he fa ce; t hatt he men onl yobs er ved t he as s ai l antfora s hor t per i od of t i m e; and t hatbot h m en s aw t he ar t i cl e i n t he A da new s paperfea t ur i ng a phot ogr aph of Rockynextt o t he composi t e i m age c r eat ed b yP ra tt. N ot hi ng, how ever , i ndi cat ed t hatw hen N ew l and and Russ el l obs er ved t he assa il an t, their view s w ere o b stru cted o r i m p ed ed b yp o o r l igh ti n g . N o r w as th ere i ndi cat i on t hatt heyw er e di s t r act ed and l ooki ng el s ew her e w hen t he as s ai l ant ent er ed t he fl ea mar ketoffi ce. Si m i l ar l y , bot h m en pr ovi ded des cr i pt i ons of t he as s ai l antt hatw er e r el at i vel ycons i s t entw i t h one anotherand mat ched other e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l r e g a r d i n g Ro c k y ’ s g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e a r o u n d t h e t i me of t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es . L i kew i s e, w hen N ew l and and Russ el l i dent i fi ed R ocky

### Th e OCC A eng aged in a s imil aranaly si s when con si deri ng wh ether 31 

### pr e s e nt at i on of the e ye wi tne s s i de nt i fi c at i ons wi thoutac aut i onaryi ns truc t i on rep resen teda sub stan tial v io latio no f R o cky ’s rig h ts. It co n clu d edth at w h ile N ew lan d ’s an dRu ssell’s id en tif icatio n s o f

R o ckyh adb eenth o ro u g h ly ch allen g edb ytrial co un sel, th e id en tif icatio n s w ere n o n eth eless reliab le. Sn owv. Sta te , 876 P.2d29 1, 29 5 (Ok la . Cri m . App . 199 4). Ro ckyas se rt s c ounselwas i neff ec ti ve fo r not re qu es ti ng a c auti on aryjury i ns truc t i on r e gar di ng i de nt i fi c at i on t e s ti m ony . W e c annots aythe abs e nc e of s uc h an i ns truc ti on pr e

judi c e d Roc ky . As we have r e pe at e dl ydi s c us s e d, N ew lan dan dRu ssell w ere subj ect to rig o ro u s cro ss-ex am in atio nb yd ef en se c ouns e l . Couns e l ’ s a de ptc r os s - e xam i nat i on m a de qui t e c l e arthatNe wl and’ s and Ru ssell’s id en tif

icatio n s sh o u ldb e ap p ro ach edw itha h ealthyd o se o f sk ep ticism . Weig h in g all th e ev id en ce, th e j uryw as n ev erth eless co nv in cedo f R o cky ’s g u ilt. Roc kyha s notpe r s ua de d us thatha d the juryr e c e i ve d as pe c i fi c i ns truc t i on reg ard in g h o wth eysh o u ldw eig hid en tif icatio ntestim o ny , th ere is a reaso n ab le prob abil itythe outcom e of h is tria l wou ld have been diff er ent. Th e s tate court’ s re soluti onof

this is sue was no t unrea sonable.

- 63- att r i al , nei t herm an expr es s ed hes i t at i on t hatR ockyw as t he man t heys aw att he fl ea mar keton D ece m ber8. Fi nal l y , t he t i m e betw een the men’ s obs er vat i on of t he as s ai l antand t hei r s ubs equenti dent i fi cat i ons of R ockyw as not s o at t enuat ed a s to u n d e rm in e th e re lia b ility o f th e ir id e n tific a tio n s . S e e A rc h u leta , 864 F. 2d at 7 1 2 ( l i s t i n g c a s e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i d e n t i fi c a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g a n y wh e r e f r o m two d a y s u p to a y e a r a f

te r t h e c ri m e w e re re lia b le ). S e e a lso g e n e ra lly Ne il , 40 9 U. S. a t 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ( o u t l i n i n g fa c t o r s t o c o n s i d e r w h e n d e t e r m i n i n g r e l i a b i l i t y o f e ye w itn e ss id e n tific a tio n s). In lig h t o f th e a b o v e , w e a re n o t co n v in c e d th a t ev e n if t r i al couns el had s ought t o s uppr es s N ew l and’ s and R us s el l ’ s i dent i fi cat i ons , he w oul d have been s ucce s s ful i n doi ng s o. A s t he Supr eme C our t decl ar ed, 31 [s] urel y , w e cann ot s ayt hat unde r al l t he cir cum st ances o f t his case

### - 64-

th e re is “ a v e rysu b sta n tial lik e lih o o d o f irre p a ra b le m isi d en ti fica ti o n . ” S h o rto f th at po int, su ch ev iden ce is fo r t h e jury t o w ei gh. W e ar e cont entt o r el yupon t he good s ens e and j udgm ent of A m er i can j ur i es , forevi dence w i t h s om e el ement of unt r us t w or t hi nes s i s cus t om ar ygr i s t fort he j ur ym i l l . J ur i es ar e not s o s us cept i bl e t hatt heycannotm eas ur e i nt el l i gent l yt he w ei ght of i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyt hathas s om e ques t i onabl e fe atur e. Mans on , 432 U . S. at116 ( quot i ng Si m m ons , 390 U . S. at384) . I ndeed, her e t he juryw as g iven the o p p o rtu n ityto co n side r t h e w ea k n esse s inh ere n t i n N ew land ’s and R ussel l ’s i den t i fi cat i on s of R ock ybu t no nethel ess deem ed the t w o m en’s i dent i fi cat i ons w or t hy . O n t hi s r ecor d, R ockyhas not s how n hi s couns el w as ineffe cti v e u n d er St r i cklandforfai l i ng t o s eek s uppr es s i on of N ew l and’ s and R u s s e l l ’ s i d e n t i fi c a t i o n s o f R o c k y. B . Fai l ur e t o r eques t a cont i nuance R ock yal so con t end s hi s t ri al at t orneyw as i neffect i ve fo r fai l i ng t o reque st a c o n ti n u an ce af

ter t h e state e n d o rsed C am p b ell as a w itn ess ju st tw o d ay s b efo re trial. H e a rg u e s th a t a c o n tin u a n c e w o u ld h a v e e n a b led c o u n se l to in v e stig a te C ampbel l ’ s cl ai m s r egar di ng R ocky ’ s confe s s i on. I n par t i cul ar , he as s er t s t he e x tra tim e a ffo rd e d b ya c o n tin u a n c e w o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d c o u n se l th e o p p o rtu n ity to lea rn o f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s u n d e r w h ich M c N e e lu s s e c re tlyre c o rd e d C a m p b e ll di s cus s i ng R ocky ’ s confe s s i on, t o i nt er vi ew C ampbel l t o l earn of t he al l eged c o e rc iv e m a n n e r b yw h ich th e p o lice o b tain e d h e r sta tem e n t, an d p o ten tiallyto di s coverC ampbel l ’ s s t at ement w as unt r ue. R ockyr ai s ed t hi s cl ai m on hi s di r ect

### - 65-

a p p e a l, an d th e O C C A ru led a g a in st h im , sta tin g “ [ d ]e fe n se c o u n se l th o ro u g h ly cr os s - exami ned t hi s w i t nes s and w eake ned hercr edi bi l i t ycons i der abl y . W e fi nd no er r or her e. ” Snow , 8 7 6 P .2 d a t 2 9 6 . W e not e t hati n fac t t he s t at e t r i al cour t gr ant ed a c ont i nuance and pus hed t he tr i al ’s st artdate back b ya day w hen C am pb el l w as endo rs ed b yt he st at e as a w i t nes s . D ur i ng t r i al , couns el vi gor ous l ycr os s - exami ned C ampbel l , r ai s i ng doubt s as t o t he ver aci t yof hert es t i m ony . C ouns el al s o cal l ed K l i ftand Scofi el d, b o th o f w h o m p ro v id e d te s tim o n yth a t u n d e rm in e d C a m p b e ll’ s v e rs io n o f e v e n ts . T h e ytes tifie d R o c k yw a s w o rk in g a t th e R a m a d a In n th e n ig h t h e a lleg e d ly c o n fe ss e d to C a m p b e ll. R o c k ysu g g e sts a f

u rth e r c o n tin u a n c e w o u ld h a v e e n a b led trial c o u n se l to lea rn C a m p b e ll’s sta tem e n t w a s u n tru e . W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d . It w a s n o t u n til 1997 t hatC ampbel l r eca nt ed hert es t i m ony . Pr i or t o t hatdat e, s he affi r m ed t he acc ur acyof hert r i al s t at ement s . Speci fi cal l y , w hen appe l l at e couns el w as i nves t i gat i ng R ocky ’ s cl ai m s forhi s di r ectappea l , C ampbel l m ai nt ai ned t hather t es t i m onyatt r i al w as t r ue and thatno one t hr eat ened he r i n t he cour s e of he r pr ovi di ng i nfor m at i on t o t he pol i ce. N ot hi ng i ndi cat es t hata s l i ght l yl onger cont i nuance pr i or t o t he comm ence m entof R ocky ’ s t r i al w oul d have e nabl ed t r i al co u n sel t o learn C am p b ell ’s t esti m o n yw as a ll eg ed lyco erc ed . T h e O C C A ’s r ej ect i on of R ocky ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m on t hi s i s s ue w as not

### - 66-

a c o n tr a ry o r u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f S u p re m e C o u rt la w . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ). C . Fai l ur e t o obj ectt o i r r el evantand i nadmi s s i bl e evi dence A t t r i al , t he s t at e pr es ent ed a number of pi ece s of evi dence t o w hi ch defe ns e couns el di d notobj ect . T hes e i ncl uded a pl as t ercas t of a footpr i nt found a t th e sc e n e o f

th e c rim e a n d p h o to g ra p h s o f sk id m a rk s, a tire tra c k , an d ten n is s hoes . R ockycl ai m s t hi s evi dence w as ei t heri r r el evantor i t s pr obat i ve val ue w as o u tw e ig h e d b yth e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir p reju d ice o r c o n f u sio n to th e ju rya n d sh o u ld h a v e b e e n e x c lu d e d . T he O C C A r ej ect ed t hi s cl ai m on t he mer i t s . I t hel d t hat [t ] he bootpr i nt w as t he s ame si ze a s t he appe l l ant ’ s ; t he s ki d m ar ks and t i r e t r acks coul d have be en made byt he St al l i ng’ s t r uck s een sp ee d ing aw ay fro m the flea m ark et. T h e ten n is sho es w ere phot ogr aphed a t t he apa r t m entw her e appe l l anthad bee n s t ay i ng and c o n tra d icte d h is s tate m e n t to h is g irlfr ien d th a t h e w o re h is te n n is sh o e s o n th e d a yo f

th e m u rd e r. W h ile n o n e o f th is e v id e n c e is part i cular l yst rong, i t do es t end t o m ake ce rt ai n fac t s m ore or l ess pr obabl e t han t heyw oul d have be en w i t hout t he evi dence . T hus , t he evi dence s at i s fi es t he s t atut or yr equi r ement foradmi s s i on. C ouns el d id n o t er r b yfa ili n g to o bjec t to it. Snow , 876 P. 2d at296 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he fe der al di s t r i ctcour t agr eed, not i ng t hat“t o t he ext entt hatt he s t at e cour t found t he evi dence s at i s fi ed t he admi s s i on re q u ire m e n ts o f

O k lah o m a law , this c o u rt fin d s th e fa ilu re to o bjec t w a s w e ll w i t hi n t he ambi t of r eas onabl e t r i al s t r at egyand does not cons t i t ut e i neffect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

tr ia l c o u n s e l.” F e d . H C , re c ., v o l. V II , d o c . 3 8 a t 3 6 -3 7 .

### EdSn ow ’s fu llnam e i s Edw ard L awre nce Sno w. Fed. HC , r ec ., vo l. II I, 32 

### do c . 14 , i t e mQ. E d d ie S n o w ’s f

u ll n am e is L aw ren ce E dw ardS n o w . F ed . H C , rec., v o l. 33 

### I I I , do c . 14 , i t e mU. As r e fe r e nc e d above , tri a lc ouns e ls t at e d i n an a ffi davi tthathe di d not 34 

### receiv e th e O .S .B .I rep o rts o nD un canan dG ro g g in s. Se es upra not e 31; Fe d. HC, r e c . , vol . I I I , doc . 14, i t e mBB. I n Roc ky ’ s r e que s tfors t at e pos t - c onvi c t i on re li ef, he noted this factbu t, fo r the sake of argum ent, addres se d the re le vance and a l l e ge d i mpa c tof the e vi de nc e pot e nt i a l l yobt a i ne d fr omDunc an and Grog ins und erbo th a Brad y and Str i c klandan a l y s i s . H e d i de s s e nt i a l l yth e s ame in his r equestfo r r el ie f o n app ea l Th e OCC A addre ss ed the Grogins info rm at ion in the context of R ocky ’s Bradyclaiman dd eem edanyarg um en t reg ard in g D un canp ro cedurallyb arred . Snow , PC 9 7-13 50 at4, 9. Th e federa l dis tric t c ourtanalyze d the Duncan info rm ation solelyun der a Bradyrub ri c . As fo rthe Gr og i ns O. S. B. I . i nt e rvi e w, th e f ed eral d istrict co urt f

irst n o tedtrial co un sel attestedh e d idn o t receiv e th is (co ntinu ed ...)

- 67- R ockyhas done not hi ng on appea l but pr es entt he conc l us or yas s er t i on t hat t he O C C A ’ s adj udi cat i on of t hi s i s s ue w as unr eas onabl e. H e has not pr es ent ed s uffi ci entar gum entforw hycouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he evi dence w as defi ci entand how s uch al l eged fai l ur e pr ej udi ced hi m . T r i al couns el w as not in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ilin g to o bje c t to th is e v id e n c e . D . Fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e and pr es entot herevi dence t hatw oul d have r ai s ed re a so n a b le d o u b t as to R o c k y ’s g u ilt R ockyas s er t s couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o cal l as addi t i onal w itn e ss e s h is fa th e r, Jo h n ; h is u n c le, E d S n o w ; h is s iste r, A n g e lia S tan ley; h is 32 cous i n, E ddi e Snow ; hi s cous i n, J ohnnySnow ; J ohnnySnow ’ s comm on l aw 33 w i fe, S heil a C l ark; L arryS cott ; B arbar a B easel y ; D un can; Tri pp ; and G rogi ns. 34

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 34 

### in f o rm atio n . I

d. at33. The c ourtthe n r e je c t e d anyar gum e ntr e gar di ng the Grog ins i nf

orm at ion und erbo th a Str i c klandand Bradyana l y s i s . I n s o doi ng, the court c on clud ed thatun der Str i c kland ’ s pr e judi c e pr ong and Brady ’s m ateriality stan d ard , R o ckyco u ldn o t p rev ail. T h ese tw o stan d ard s are v irtu allyid en tical. See Un ited Statesv. Bagley , 47 3 U .S. 667 , 682 (198 5) (“ We findthe Stri c klandfo rmulat ion o f the A gu rs test f o r m aterialitysu f

f icien tlyf lex ib le . . . : T h e ev id en ce is m aterial o n lyif th ere is ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , ha d the e vi de nc e be e n di s c l os e d t o the de fe ns e , the resu lt o f th e p ro ceed in g w o u ldh av e b eend if f eren t. A‘reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility ’ is a p ro b ab ilitysu f

f icien t to un d erm in e co n f id en ce inth e o utco m e.”); Stri cklandv. W as hi ngton , 446 U.S. 66 8, 69 4, 69 5 (19 84 ) ( “[T] he approp ri at e t es t for prejud ic e find s i ts roots i n the te stfo r m at eria li tyof exculpat oryinfo rm at ion n ot disc lose d t o the de fe ns e bythe pr os e c ut i on, and i n the t e s tform at e ri a l i tyof t e s t i m ony m a de unava i l abl e t o the de fe ns e byGove rnm e ntde port at i on of awi tne s s . The defend ant must s ho w that there is a r ea sonable probabili tythat , but fo r c ounsel ’s unp ro f essio n al erro rs, th e resu lt o f th e p ro ceed in g w o u ldh av e b eend if f eren t. A r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tyi s apr obabi l i tys uffi c i e ntt o unde rm i ne c onfi de nc e i n the o utco m e.” (citin g inp art, U n itedSta tes v. A gu rs , 4 2 7 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 4 (1 9 7 6 )). B ecau se w e h av e alreadyrej ectedR o cky ’s Bradyc l a i m s r e gar di ng the Gr ogi ns and D un can inf

orm at ion, his i neff

ec ti ve as si st ance of

coun se l c la im s have been effecti velydeci ded as wel l. We ther efore decl ine t o addre ss themfurther.

- 68- R ockyas s er t s t he addi t i onal t es t i m onypr ovi ded byt hes e i ndi vi dual s w oul d have pr ovi ded r eas onabl e doubtas t o hi s gui l t . H e al s o cl ai m s couns el w as i neffect i ve fo r fa ili n g to p re se n t p sy c h o lo g ica l ev id e n c e sh o w in g R o c k y ’s s u sc e p tib ili tyto m a n ip u la tio n b yo th e rs , p a rt ic u la rl yh is b ro th e r. A few of t hes e cl ai m s w er e r ai s ed on di r ectappea l , but a maj or i t yof t hem w er e pr es ent ed t o t he O kl ahoma cour t s fort he fi r s t t i m e i n R ocky ’ s pet i t i on for s t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. T he O C C A decl i ned t o addr es s a maj or i t yof t he new c la im s , d e e m in g th e m w a iv e d u n d e r O k la h o m a ’s P o s t- C o n v ic tio n P ro c e d u re A c t.

### We have express ed concern re garding app li cati onof Ok laho m a’ s 35 

### procedural barto ineffect ive a ss is tance of counselcl ai m s andqu es ti on ed wh ether itcan d ee m ed adequate andindepend ent t o b arhabeas re view of cl ai m s not ra is ed o nd irect ap p eal. Se eEngl is h v . Cody , 1 4 6 F .3 d1 2 5 7 (1 0 thC ir. 1 9 9 8 ); Brec heen v . Re y nolds , 41 F .3d 1 34 3 (10 th Cir. 19 94 ). Ok laho m a’ s proce dura l barrule s i ndi c at e i ne ffe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c ouns e lc l a i m s mus tnorm a l l ybe br oughton d irect ap p eal. Se es upra n o te 2 6 . T h ere is a p ro v isio n , h o w ev er, f o r rem an dto th e trial co urt f

o r anad d itio n al h earin g o nth e in ef f ectiv en ess claim s. SeeO KLA 

### . S T AT 

### . tit. 2 2 , ch . 1 8 , Ap p . Ru le. 3 .1 1 (reco rdm ayb e sup p lem en tedo nap p eal, and w here nece ss ary , tri alcourt m aybe dire ct ed to conduct an evidentiary h earin g ). B ut O k lah o m a rarely , if ev er, rem an d s cases f

o r su cha h earin g . Eng lish , 146 F.3dat12 64 . W e have there fo re held that the Okl ahom abarwi l lappl yi n thos e l i m i t e d c a s e s m e e t i ng the fol l owi ng two c ondi t i ons : tri a land appe l l at e c ouns e ldi ffe r ; and the in ef f ectiv en ess claimcanb e reso lv edup o nth e trial reco rdalo n e. A ll o th er in ef

f ectiv en ess claim s are p ro cedurallyb arredo n lyif O k l ah o ma ’ s s p e c i a lap p e l l at e r e man dru l e f o ri n e f f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i ms is ad equ atelyan dev enh an d ed lyap p lied . I d. We h av e also in d icatedth e state h as th e in itial b urd eno f assertin g th at a peti ti on erhas procedural lydefaulte d h is cl ai m s und eran adequate proce dura l b ar. H o o ks v. Wa rd, 184 F.3d12 06 , 121 7 (10 th Cir. 19 99 ). On ce the s tate has d o n e so , “th e b urd ento p lace th at d ef en se inissu e sh if

ts to th e p etitio n er. T h is

(co ntinu ed ...)

- 69- See O K LA . S TAT . ti t. 22 , § § 1 0 8 0 -1 0 8 9 ; supra n o te 26 . T h e fed era l dist ri ct co u rt agr eed w i t h t he O C C A ’ s w ai ver r u l i n g s a n d d e t e r mi n e d t h e n e wl yr a i s e d c l a i ms w er e pr ocedur al l ybar r ed. N ever t hel es s , t he court , “as s um i ng forpurpos es of argum ent that [R ock y ’s new cl ai m s] w ere not proced ural l ybarr ed, ” rej ect ed those c la im s o n th e ir m e ri ts . F e d . H C , re c ., v o l. V II , d o c . 3 8 a t 3 2 . A s w i t h o ur exam i nati on of R ock y ’s B r ady cl ai m s , w e nee d not r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s pr ocedur al barr ul i ng r egar di ng R ocky ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n s e l c la im s . In s te a d , w e “ m a ye x e rc is e . . . d is c re tio n to b yp a s s . . . 35

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 35 

### mus tbe done , atam i ni mum , bys pe c i fi c a l l e gat i ons bythe pe t i t i one ra s t o the inadequacyof

the s tate procedure.” I d. Inth is case, R o ckyh ada d if f eren t atto rn eyo nd irect ap p eal th anat trial. His app el late coun se l, a m ember of the Ap pell at e I nd igent Defender off ic e, r a i s e d s e ve r a li ne ffe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c ouns e lc l a i m s a ft e rr e que s t i ng and be i ng grante d leave to supp le m ent the tria l r ec ord. Co un se l did no t r equestan evidenti aryhearing o n R ocky ’s ineffect ive a ss is tance c la im s but did h ave an inv estig ato r assist inp rep arin g R o cky ’s ap p eal. Ro ckyargu es thatOk laho m a’ s proce dura l barshou ld be deem ed in ad equ ate, th ereb yp erm ittin g rev iewo f h is ad d itio n al in ef

f ectiv en ess claim s. He c ont e nds thatonlyafe w de fe ndant s , hi m s e l f i nc lude d, we r e pe rm i tt e d duri ng th e tim e p erio do f

h is d irect ap p eal to sup p lem en t th e trial reco rdf o r th eir appeal s. He al so al le ges the Ap pell at e I nd igent Defender off ic e was un ders ta ff

ed and, byi mpl i c at i on, unde r funde d, and he nc e unabl e t o pr ovi de the type of adv o cacyth at sh o u ldb e ren d eredinstate p o st-co nv ictio np ro ceed in g s. T h eref o re, h e arg u es, O k lah o m a’s p ro cedural b ar sh o u ldn o t ap p lyto h is in ef f ectiv en ess claim s. Whil e we harbor continuing con ce rns r egar ding Ok laho m a’ s proce dura l bar t o c l a i m s r e gar di ng the i ne ffe c t i ve ne s s of c ouns e l , we ar e notc onvi nc e d by R o cky ’s arg um en t inth is sp ecif ic case. H is d irect ap p eal atto rn eyw as ab le to exp an dth e reco rd , u se aninv estig ato r, an draise a numb er o f in ef f ectiv en ess c l a i m s on appe a lba s e d on thate xpande d r e c or d. Norha s Roc kypr offe r e d any e vi de nc e bya ffi davi torothe rwi s e thathi s appe l l at e c ouns e lwa s l i m i t e d or c ons tr a i ne d i n r e pr e s e nt i ng hi m . Appe l l at e c ouns e lpr ovi de d an a ffi davi ton Roc ky ’ s be ha l f i n hi s pos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ngs t o a ddr e s s othe ri s s ue s , buts he m a de no r e fe r e nc e t o s t a ffi ng orfundi ng c ut s unde rm i ni ng he rabi l i tyt o r e pr e s e nt R o cky . F ed . H C , rec., v o l. III, d o c. 1 4 , itemD D . U n d er th e sp ecif ic ci rc um st ance s of this c as e, ther efore, we are no t per suaded byRo cky ’s procedural b ar arg um en t.

- 70- pr ocedur al i s s ues and r ej ecta habe as cl ai m on t he mer i t s . ” C annon , 383 F. 3d at 1159 ( ci t i ng R om er o v. Fur l ong , 2 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )) . See a lso Sm ith , 3 7 9 F .3 d a t 9 3 7 -3 8 ; A l l en , 3 6 8 F .2 d a t 1 2 3 5 . B e c a u se R o c k yre a ss e rts t hese cl ai m s i n h i s i neffect i ve assi st ance o f app el l at e cou nsel argum ent, w e m ust

### - 71-

re a c h th e m e rits o f

th e se iss u e s in a n ye v e n t. W e ac know l edge thi s por t i on of R ocky ’ s appea l has gi ven us paus e. I n t he fi nal anal y s i s , how ever , w het herunder§ 2254( d) ’ s hi ghl ydefe r ent i al s t andar d, or even unde r a de novo r evi ew , w e ar e unabl e t o concl ude couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on w as s o defi ci entas t o caus e pr ej udi ce e ven as s um i ng couns el er r ed as R ocky al l eges. W e begi n w i t h t he cl ai m s t hathave c aus ed us t he gr eat es t conce r n, focus i ng o n the a ll eg ed test im o n yE d , Jo h n n y , an d C lark su b seq u en tl yclaim ed they w ere w i l l i ng t o gi ve i n R ocky ’ s defe ns e. I n an affi davi t pr epar ed forR ocky ’ s di r ect appea l , E d s t at ed:

O ne ni ght A l l en ca m e t o m ypl ace and t al ked t o m e aboutw hat happene d i n A da i n D ece m ber1988. I t w as aft erR ockyw as ar r es t ed fort he s t abbi ngs i n A da, but befor e he w entt o t r i al . . . . A l l en l i kes to b ra g a b o u t w h a t h e h a s d o n e . . . . A l l en t ol d m e Rocky di d notki l lt he w om an i n A da. He s ai d he di d. He t ol d m e ev er

y t i m e he s t abbed heri ts ounded l i ke a pig hung undera gat e orl i ke hi t t i ng a r i pe w at er m el on. A l l en ca r r i ed a kni fe i n t he hea dl i nerof hi s pi ckup. T hatni ght he w entout t o hi s pi ckup a n d g o t th e k n ife o u t o f th e h e a d lin e r. He br oughtt he kni f e i nt o t he hous e and s how ed m e how he s t abbed the w om an. A l l en s ai d al l he w ant ed w as m oney . T he kni fe w as l i ke a s t eak kni fe. I t di d not have j agg ed ed ges.

. . . . I t old B arneyW ard abo ut w hat A l l en h ad tol d m e, bu t he just sa id so m e th in g lik e , “w e a lre a d yg o t th a t.” I w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d if he had l etm e.

### Duri ng tria l, defense counsel a sked Alle n o n cross -e xam inat ion if h e had 36 

### evertold his unclethathe st abbed B ush and“s he squeal ed li ke a pig.” Tr. at 8 5 4 . A llend en iedm ak in g anysu chstatem en ts. I d. C o un sel d idn o t call E dto t e s t i f y.

- 72- F ed . H C , rec . , v o l. III , d o c. 1 4 , it em Q (em p h asis ad d ed ). Jo h n n yan d C lark 36 s ubs equent l ys i gned affi davi t s forus e i n pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs s t at i ng t hey w oul d be w i l l i ng t o t es t i fyt o s i m i l ari nfor m at i on. T heybot h cl ai m ed t hat “[ s]om eti m e a fter R o ck y ’s tri al, [th ey ] hear d A l l en s ay he was the one who com m i t t ed the m ur deri n A da, notR ocky . H e sa id th e w o m a n sq u e a led lik e a p ig everyt i m e he s t uck her . [They ] bel i eved A l l en bec aus e [they ] knew w hatki nd of per s on he i s . ” Id. , i t em S , T ( emphasi s added) . T heyal s o bot h i ndi cat ed t hatt r i al couns el w as aw ar e of the i nfor m at i on t heyw er e w i l l i ng t o pr ovi de, but decl i ned t o cal l t hem as w i t nes s es att r i al . J ohnny ’ s aff i davi t s peci fi cal l ys t at es I w a s n e v e r a sk e d to tes tify a t R o c k y ’s tria l in Ju n e o f 1 9 8 9 , b u t I d id tell R o c k y ’s a tto rn e y , B a rn e yW a rd , ev e ry th in g I a m sa y in g in th is aff i davi t . H e s ai d he al r eadyhad t he i nfor m at i on I gave hi m , and he di d not w antt o us e i t beca us e s om eone mi ght geti n t r oubl e. Id. , it em S . C lark’s a ffidav itlarge lym irrors the lang u ag e a p p ea ri n g in Jo h n n y ’s aff i davi t . She s t at ed I w as neveras ked t o t es t i fyatR ocky ’ s t r i al i n J une of 1989, but R ocky ’ s t r i al at t or ney , B ar neyW ar d, w as aw ar e of e ver y t hi ng I am s ay i ng i n t hi s aff

i davi t . H e s ai d he al r eadyhad t he i nfor m at i on, and he di d not w antt o us e i t beca us e s om eone mi ght geti n t r oubl e.

### J ohnny ’ s a ffi davi ta l s o a s s e rt s thatAl l e n a s ke d J ohnnyi f he woul d be 37 

### will ing to dri ve the Sta ll ings truck f romAd a t o H arts ho rne but thathe decl ined because he had rec entlyce as ed wo rking f or Stal li ng s. Fed. HC , r ec ., vo l. II I, doc . 14, i t e mS. J ohnnyand Cl ark a l s o c l a i m e d the ywe r e pr e s e ntatthe Sport s m an’ s barafe w ni ght s be for e the Adac ri m e s and he ar d Al l e n offe rRoc ky m on eyto drive the Stal li ng s truck fromAd a t o H arts ho rne. In additi on , they as se rt ed Alle n att empted to implic at e J ohnn yin the fle a m arket c ri m es ; that they saw A ll en plac e agreyho od ed sweats hirtand a kn ife into a bo x andle ave i t at hi s fathe r ’ s hous e i n Mc Al e s t e r ; thatAl l e n c l a i m e d the kni fe wa s the we apon Roc kyus e d i n the fl e am arke tc ri m e s ; and thatAl l e n thr e at e ne d t o ki l lthe mand th eir ch ildrenif

th eytestif

iedat R o cky ’s trial. I

d. , i t e mS, T. Curi ou sly , Rocky ’s st at e post- conv ic ti onand f eder alhabeas coun se l foc us e d m or e i nt e nt l yon thi s i nform at i on than on J ohnnyand Cl ark’ s s t at e m e nt th at th eyh eardA llensayh e co mm ittedth e A d a crim es.

- 73- Id. , i t e m T. 37 E d ’s, Jo h n n y ’s, an d C lark’s info rm ati o n w en t t o the h ea rto f R o ck y ’s defe ns e: t hatt he j ur ycoul d not fi nd R ockycomm i t t ed t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbeca us e evi dence i ndi cat ed hi s br ot her , A l l en, w as t he p erp etrator instead . T o ad v an ce this t h eo ry , tr ial co u n sel reli ed o n B en so n ’s t es t i m ony . She t es t i fi ed A l l en made a number of i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s about t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es . A ccor di ng t o B ens on, A l l en cl ai m ed t o have the kni fe u se d in th e flea m a rk e t cr im e s; c laim e d to h a v e k n o w led g e a b o u t w h a t itis lik e to sta b a p e rso n ; sa id h e th re w th e k n ife a w a ya t a lo c a l d u m p ; an d su b se q u e n tly th re a te n e d B e n s o n w h e n h e le a rn e d s h e s h a re d th is in fo rm a tio n w ith th e p o lic e . O f cour s e, m uch of Benson’ s t es t i m onyw as cal l ed i nt o ques t i on w hen s he w as cr os s - exami ned byt he s t at e and f ur t herunder m i ned byr ebut t al t es t i m ony

### The s e two c l a i m s have fol l owe d ac onfus e d pr oc e dur a lpath. Whe n the 38 

### OC CAa ddr e s s e d R oc ky ’ s s t at e po s t - c onvi c t i onc l a i m s , i tc on fu s e d J ohnnySn ow , Roc ky ’ s c ous i n, wi th J ohn Snow, Roc ky ’ s da d. As we wi l ldi s c us s l at e r , Roc ky raisedanin ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f

co un sel claimo nd irect ap p eal reg ard in g h is atto rn ey ’s f

ailure to call h is f

ath er as a w itn ess. T h e O C C Arej ectedth is claim o nth e m erits. Snow , 8 7 6 P .2 dat 2 9 6 . Ind enyin g R o ckyrelief inh is state p o stc onvi c t i on pe t i t i on, the OCCA e rr one ous l ybe l i e ve d the c l a i m s r a i s e d r e gar di ng J ohn Snow on di r e c tappe a lwe r e the s am e a s the c l a i m s r e gar di ng J ohnnySnow (co ntinu ed ...)

- 74- pr ovi ded byherm ot herand O ffi cerH ogan. R ockycont ends t he addi t i onal t es t i m onyfr om E d, J ohnny , and C l ar k w oul d have c r eat ed r eas onabl e doubt r egar di ng hi s gui l t , and couns el w as t her efor e i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr es ent th e m a s w itn e s s e s . R ocky ’ s cl ai m r egar di ng hi s uncl e w as r ai s ed on di r ectappea l . R ej ect i ng t hi s cl ai m on t he mer i t s , t he O C C A s t at ed [h] ad [thi s w i t nes s ] been c al l ed, [R ocky ] ar gues , [Ed] c oul d have corr ob orat ed cert ai n d efen se evi den ce. O f cou rs e [E d] w ou l d als o hav e been subjectt o cross- exam i nati on . A s t here i s no clai m defe nse c o u n se l w a s n o t aw a re o f [ th is] w itn e ss [ ], th e d e c isio n n o t to c a ll [hi m ] m us t be cons i der ed r eas onabl e t r i al t act i cs . R eas onabl e t r i al t act i cs , even thos e w hi ch ul t i m at el yar e nots ucce s s ful , ar e not g ro u n d s fo r fin d in g tr ia l c o u n s e l in e ffe c tiv e . Snow , 8 7 6 P . 2 d at 29 6 . W e re v iew the c o u rt ’s de cisi o n u n d er § 2 2 5 4 (d)’s defe r ent i al s t andar d. R ocky ’ s cl ai m s r egar di ng J ohnnyand C l ar k w er e fi r s t r ai s ed i n hi s pet i t i on fo r sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief a n d w e re d ism iss e d b yth e O C C A a s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d . B e c a u se th e se c laim s w e re n o t ad d re ss e d b yth e sta te c o u rt o n th e ir

38

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 38 

### raisedinth e p o st-co nv ictio np etitio n . T h e co urt th eref o re d eem edth e claim b arr e db y res ju dica ta . Snow , PC 9 7-13 50 at2, 8. Th e c ourtcorr ec tlyconcluded thatCl ark’ s i nform at i on wa s i de nt i c a lt o J ohnny ’ s butthe n, c ont i nui ng t o be l i e ve J ohnnyand J ohn we r e the s am e pe r s on, he l d Roc kyha d “ nots hown s uffi c i e nt reaso nw hy[ h is] claim[ reg ard in g C lark ] w as n o t raisedb yd irect ap p eal co un sel. Th is info rm at ion d oes not ra is e a dd itional fac ts no t a lr ea dypartof the r ec ord.” I d. at9. Roc ky ’ s c l a i mr e gar di ng Cl ark wa s thus r e je c t e d a s pr oc e dur a l l ybarr e d. The fe de r a ldi s tri c tc ourtpe rpe tuat e d thi s c onfus i on byhol di ng the OCCA d i dn o te rri nd e e m i n g th e s e c l a i m s p r e c lu d e db y res ju dica ta an dp ro cedural b ar. Th es e c ourt s’ conf

usion is who llyun ders tand able . As we a ckno wledged earl ie r inth is o p in io n , se e su

p ra n o te 1 , th ere are num ero u s w itn esses an daf f ian ts in th is case w h o are relatedan dsh are v erysimilar n am es. D istin g u ish in g th ese in d iv idu als, let alo n e d istin g u ish in g w h enR o ckyraisedh is claim s reg ard in g th eir varyi ng pr offe r e d t e s t i m onyors t at e m e nt s , i s adaunt i ng t a s k. None the l e s s , the c l a i m s r e gar di ng J ohnnyand Cl ark we r e di s m i s s e d a s barr e d on e rr one ous g ro un d s.

- 75- me r i t s , we r e v i e w t h e m de novo . C annon , 259 F. 3d at1260. T he di ffe r i ng sta n d a rd s o f

re v iew fo r E d , Jo h n n y , an d C lar k a re o f n o m a tter, h o w e v e r. W h ile w e have s ever e r es er vat i ons r egar di ng t r i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l t hes e t hr ee in d iv id u a ls a s w itn e ss e s, w e n o n e th e les s a re n o t co n v in c e d th e a b se n c e o f th e ir t e s t i m o n y p r ej u d i c e d R o c k y. G ener al l y , couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l w i t nes s es w hos e t es t i m onyw oul d be cor r obor at i ve orcumul at i ve of e vi dence al r eadypr es ent ed att r i al i s not deemed c o n s titu tio n a lly d e fic ie n t. See Humphr eys v. G i bs on , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 2 1 (1 0 th C i r . 2001) ( cumul at i ve evi dence w oul d not have l ed j ur yt o r eac h a di ffe r ent r es ul t i n s ent enci ng phas e of c api t al cas e and thus cannotpr ovi de bas i s forhabea s re lief); Medi na v. B ar nes , 71 F. 3d 363, 367 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( addi t i onal evi dence

### - 76-

w as “atm os t cumul at i ve, and of l i m i t ed pr obat i ve val ue” a nd, as s uch, coul d not p ro v id e b a sis fo r h a b e a s re lief); Uni t ed St at es v. Schaf l ander , 743 F. 2d 714, 719 ( 9t h C i r . 1984) ( t r i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l w i t nes s es t o pr ovi de cumul at i ve ex cu lpato ryev iden ce d id n o t prejud ice d efen d an t) . U n li k e the se c ase s, h o w ev er, her e couns el decl i ned t o pr es entw i t nes s es w hos e t es t i m onyw oul d s uppor t t he in n o c e n c e o f

th e d e fe n d a n t, i . e. , t hatA l l en, r at hert han R ocky , comm i t t ed t he fl ea m ar ketcr i m es . I ns t ead, as w e have not ed, couns el ’ s defe ns e t heor yhi nged upon B ens on’ s t es t i m onyi n w hi ch s he onl ys ai d A l l en i m pl i ed t hathe had c om m i t t ed t he cr i m es and w hi ch w as s i gni fi cant l yunder m i ned att r i al . E d, J ohnny , and C l ar k coul d have pr ovi ded t es t i m onyt hatA l l en s ai d he had c om m i t t ed t he fl ea m a rk e t cr im e s. W e a re th u s h a rd p re ss e d to u n d e rsta n d h o w c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to cal l t hes e i ndi vi dual s as t r i al w i t nes s es i n addi t i on t o B ens on coul d be cons t r ued a s r e a s o n a b l e t r i a l s t r a t e g y. N on et heles s, w e are not convinced that “bu t for cou nsel ’s err ors, t here i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hatt he r es ul t of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” B oyd , 179 F. 3d at913 ( ci t i ng St r i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 ). S ig n ific a n tly, 

### Ed ’s , J oh nn y ’s , andClark’s t es ti m on ycould h ave s erved o nlyas i mpe a c hm e nte vi de nc e a ga i ns tAl l e n. I n R oc ky ’ s s t at e pe t i t i onfo rhabe a s r e l i e f, h e arg u edth at E d ’s, Jo hnny ’s, an dC lark ’s rep o rts o f A llen ’s statem en ts w o u ld no t c on stitute i nadm is sible hears aybecause the info rm at ion w ou ld no t be off er ed

### No argum ent was ra is ed atanypo int during these proceedi ng s that 39 

### c ouns e lwa s i ne ffe c t i ve forfa i l i ng t o a dvi s e Roc kyof the pe ri l s of t e s t i fyi ng on (co ntinu ed ...)

- 77- f o r th e trutho f

th e m atter assertedb ut rath er to imp eachA llen ’s testim o ny . S tate P C , P et. Ju ly2 4 , 1 5 5 , at 4 4 n .1 7 . Inessen ce, th e testim o nyo f th ese in d iv idu als wo uld b e use d to p re se nt ou t- of -c ourtst at em ents al le gedlym ade byAlle n that w ere in co n sistent w ithh is testim o nyat trial. O k lah o m a case lawin d icates a witnes s m aybe impeac hed w ith rel evant pri or inconsis te nt st at em ents . How ever , onl ythos e s t at e m e nt s thatwe r e pr e vi ous l y“ gi ve n unde roath s ubje c tt o the penaltyof

perjuryata deposit ion, tria l, hearing o r otherproceedi ng ,” O KLA 

### . S T AT 

### . tit. 1 2 , § 2 8 0 1 (4 )(a)(1 ), canb e u sedas sub stan tiv e ev id en ce. See O m a lza v. Sta te , 911 P. 3d 286, 302 ( Okl a . Cri m . App. 1995) . He nc e , e ve n i f Ed, Jo hnny , an dC larkd idtestif y , th eir co mm en ts reg ard in g A llen ’s statem en ts co u ld n o t b e u sedto estab lishth at A lleninf act co mm ittedth e f

lea m ark et crim es. R ath e r , th e i rt e s t i m o ny c o u l do n l y b e u s e dt o un d e rm i n e A l l e n ’ s c r e d ib i l i ty, whi c h wa s how Be ns on’ s t e s t i m onywa s us e d. I n l ooki ng att he t ot al i t yof t he evi dence and notj us t t he evi dence hel pful t o R ocky , w e ar e notper s uaded the j ur yw oul d have ha d a r eas onabl e doubt re g a rd in g R o c k y ’s g u ilt e v e n if th e yh a d h e a rd th is a d d itio n a l te s tim o n y . Id. We fi nd i t i m pos s i bl e t o over l ook t he damni ng effect s of R ocky ’ s ow n confus ed and w aver i ng t es t i m ony . R ocky ’ s t es t i m ony , coupl ed w i t h t he i dent i fi cat i ons 39

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 39 

### h is o w nb eh alf. R o ckyraisedth is claimo nd irect ap p eal, se e Di r . App. , Apl t . Br . at87, 40 

### bu t the st at e c ourtdid n ot explic it lyaddres s the is sue. Th e dis tric t c ourtno te d the OCC A’s fai lure to m enti onRo cky ’s cl ai mre garding S tanleyand then reject ed th e claimo nth e m erits. O ur rev iewis denov o. Cannon , 2 5 9 F .3 dat 1 2 6 0 .

- 78- p rov ided b yN ew land , R u ssell and H o lt , an d w ith W ard an d H igg en b o tham ’s tes tim o n yre g a rd in g th e tim in g o f e v e n ts o n th e m o rn in g o f D e c e m b e r 8 , g re a tly u n d e rm in e s th e d e fe n s e ’s a s s e rt io n th a t A lle n c o m m itte d th e fle a m a rk e t c ri m e s . O n t hi s r ecor d, w e ca nnot concl ude t hathad couns el pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om E d, J ohnny , and C l ar k, “t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hatt he r es ul t of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” B oyd , 179 F. 3d at913 ( ci t i ng St r i ckland , 6 4 4 U . S . at 69 4 ). N o r d o a n yo f

R o c k y ’s re m a in in g c la im s p ro v id e h im g ro u n d s fo r r e lie f. R o c k y c o n t e n d s c o u n s e l w a s i n e ffe c t i v e i n q u e s t i o n i n g h i s s i s t e r , A n g e l i a S t a n l e y, att r i al . St anl eycoul d have pr ovi ded t es t i m onyt hatA l l en had a gr ayhooded s w eat s hi r t l i ke t he one t he as s ai l ant w as s een w ear i ng. A s det ai l ed i n her 40 aff i davi t pr es ent ed on di r ectappea l , St anl eyw oul d have t es t i fi ed “i n M ar ch 1988

. . . [ s h e ] g a v e [ Al l e n ] . . . a g r a y , h o o d e d s we a t s h i r t t h a t z i p p e d u p t h e f r o n t . As fa r a s [ sh e k n e w ] R o c k yd id n o t h a v e a sw e a tsh irt li k e th a t.” F e d . H C , rec ., v o l. III , d o c. 14 , it em R . S h e a lso c lai m ed to h av e se en A ll en w ith a g raysw ea tshirt d u ri n g R o c k y ’s tr ia l. Id. J ones t es t i fi ed att r i al t hathe s aw R ockyw ear i ng a gr ay

### J ohn Snow’ s a ffi davi ti ndi c at e d he ha d s poke n wi th de fe ns e c ouns e lpri or 41 

### t o tri a land thatc ouns e lwa s awar e of e ve rythi ng c ont a i ne d the r e i n. I n r e je c t i ng Roc ky ’ s r e que s tfors t at e pos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f, the OCCA 42 

### conf used Ed die Sno w w ith E dd ie ’s father , Ed S no w. Ro ckyhad rai se d an ineffecti ve as si st ance of coun se l c la imre garding tes ti m on yhis Uncle Edwas wi l l i ng t o pr ovi de . The OCCA e rr one ous l yr e je c t e d Roc ky ’ s c l a i mr e gar di ng C o u s i nE d d i e a s b arr e db y res ju dica ta , thi nki ng i twa s the s am e c l a i mRoc ky raisedo nd irect ap p eal. O ur rev iew , th eref o re, is de no vo . Cannon , 259 F.3dat (co ntinu ed ...)

- 79- zi p- up hooded s w eat s hi r t att he movi e t heat ert he ni ght befor e t he cr i m es , t r . at 968, and A l l en and Rockyw er e l i vi ng t oget heratt he t i m e of the fl ea mar ket c ri m e s . Id. at618. R egar dl es s of w ho ow ned t he s w eat s hi r t , evi dence w as p re se n ted to th e ju ryth a t R o c k yw a s s e e n w e a rin g th e a rticle o f c lo th in g p rio r to t he cr i m es . T r i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o as k St anl eyaboutt he s w eat s hi r t w as nei t her d e fic ie n t n o r p reju d ic ia l. R o ck yalso claim s co u n sel w as in effe cti v e fo r fa il ing to ca ll h is fathe r, J ohn, t o t es t i fy . R ockyas s er t s hi s fathercoul d have f ur t herexpl ai ned t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng A l l en’ s pl ans forR ockyt o dr i ve t he St al l i ngs t r uck fr om A da t o H ar t s hor ne, comm ent ed on t he conf r ont at i on athi s hom e betw een A l l en and R ocky on t he day aft er t he fl ea m ar ket cr i m es , and expl ai ned w hyhe tho u g h t A ll en w as try ing to g et R o ck yinto trou b le. C o u p led w ith h is fathe r’s 41 pot ent i al t es t i m ony , R ockycl ai m s hi s cous i n E ddi e coul d have c or r obor at ed t hat A l l en as ked R ockyt o dr i ve t he St al l i ngs t r uck fr om A da t o H ar t s hor ne and that R ock yw as t ry i ng t o g et a j ob at S t al l i ng s. 42

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 42 

### 1260. Ed di e m i ghta l s o h ave t e s t i fi e d thatMi ke Tripp t ol d h i mAl l e n k e ptakn i fe i n hi s truc k thatAl l e n s a i d wa s us e d t o c omm i tthe fl e am arke tc ri m e s . Fe d. HC, rec., v o l. III, d o c. 1 4 , itemU . A s d iscu ssedb elo w , w e g iv e little w eig h t to E d d ie’s h earsayrep o rtin g o f T rip p ’s statem en ts, w h ichare w h o llyunv erif ied . Invest igat ors for Ro cky ’s st at e post- conv ic ti onpeti ti onindicate d they inte rvie wed T ripp . Tripp al le gedlysaw A ll en with the murder weapon andhear d Alle n sayhe comm itte d the crim es atthe fle a m arket. Ho wever, the i nv es ti gators we r e unabl e t o ge tTr ipp t o s i gn an a ffi davi tatt e s t i ng t o thi s i nform at i on. Tr ipp al so indicate d h e wou ld re fu se to te stifyattria l. In li gh t of the un veri fied nature of Tr ipp’ s s t at e m e nt s , we c annotc onc lude tri a lc ouns e lwa s i ne ffe c t i ve for fa i l i ngt o c a l lhi ma s awi tne s s . Ev e n i f s uc h a c t i onha d b e e n unr e a s on abl e , “ [t ]o a ffi rm at i ve l ypr ove pr e

judi c e , [Roc ky] . . . mus ts how notonl ythatthe t e s t i m ony of [an] un ca ll ed witnes s[] w ou ld have been favo rable, bu t a ls o that [the] witnes s[] w ou ld have te stifie d at tri al .” Lawre nc ev . Armontrout , 900 F. 2d 127, 13 0 (8th C ir . 199 0).

- 80- E vi dence r egar di ng R ocky ’ s al l eged tr uck dr i vi ng forA l l en as w el l as pos s i bl e s t r i fe be t w een the br ot her s w as es t abl i s hed att r i al . B ot h R ockyand K l i ft te s tifie d th a t R o c k yd ro v e th e tr u c k f ro m A d a to H a rt s h o rn e a t A lle n ’s b e h e s t. S im ila rl y , K lif

t a n d M ille r t e s tifie d to R o c k ya n d A lle n ’s fig h t a t J o h n ’s h o u s e . F in a lly , B lac k a n d W e b b tes tifie d th a t R o c k ysa id h e w a s w o rk in g fo r, o r try in g to geta j ob w i t h, St al l i ngs dr i vi ng t r ucks . O f cour s e, J ohn’ s and Eddi e’ s t es t i m ony m i ght have pr ovi ded a meas ur e of c or r obor at i on t o t he ot hert es t i m onypr offe r ed o n R o c k y ’s b e h a lf. H o w e v e r, in lig h t o f a ll t h e o th e r e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial, w e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d Jo h n ’s a n d E d d ie’ s te stim o n yc re a te a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t th e re s u lt o f

R o c k y ’s p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. B oyd , 179 F. 3d at913.

### In addres si ng this cl ai m , the federaldistri ctcourt c on fu se d B arbara 43 

### B easelyw ithB arb ara D un can . See Fe d. HC, r e c . , vol . VI I , doc . 38 at34- 35. The c ourtr e fe r s t o aBarbar aDunc an i n di s c us s i ng whe the rRoc kywa s pr e s e ntatthe Zodi a c Baron the e ve ni ng of De c e mbe r10, 1988, butthe c ourt ’ s c i t at i on t o the reco rdm ak es clear it is d iscu ssin g th e af f id av it p ro v id edb yB arb ara B easely . The di s tri c tc ourtdi d r e fe rt o Barbar aDunc an’ s i nform at i on i n a ddr e s s i ng R o cky ’s Bradyc l a i m s , whi c h we a ddr e s s e d i n s e c t i on I I I of thi s opi ni on. MaryLuna’s affidavit a ls o und er cuts LarryScott’ s a ff idavit . Lun a’ s 44 

### a ffi davi twa s pr e s e nt e d bydi r e c tappe a lc ouns e li n an e ffortt o unde rm i ne the vera ci tyof

Campb el l’ s tri alte stim on y . Lun a s tate d Campbe l lt ol d he rs he m a de up the s toryshe t old to M cNeelus and that i n h erop inion, Campb el l “ has never be e n known t o t e l lthe truth [and] i s ac ompul s i ve l i ar . ” Di r . App. , Apl t . Br . , e x. (co ntinu ed ...)

- 81- R ockyal s o chal l enges t r i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cal l Scot tand B eas l eyas w i t nes s es . Scot t ow ned t he Zodi ac Bar and s t at ed i n an affi davi t t hathe “di d not s e e R o c k yS n o w in [ h is ] b a r a t a n ytim e o n D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 8 .” F e d . H C , re c ., vol . I I I , doc. 14, i t em I. B eas el yal s o w or ked att he barand s t at ed s he w as w o r k i n g o n D e c e m b e r 1 0 b u t d i d n o t r e m e m b e r s e e i n g R o c k y. Id. R ocky 43 cont ends t he t es t i m onyof Scot t and B eas el ycoul d have c onfi r m ed t hathe di d not m a k e a c o n fe ss io n to C a m p b e ll at th e Z o d iac B a r o n D e c e m b e r 1 0 . T h is i nfor m at i on w as cumul at i ve, how ever . D efe ns e couns el pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om K l i ftand Scofi el d i ndi cat i ng R ockyw or ked ata banque t att he R amada I nn dur i ng the tim e p eriod C am p b ell claim ed R o ck yco n fe ssed to h er. T h ese w itn esse s w ere abl e t o defi ni t i vel ys t at e R ockyw as i n t hei r companyon t he eve ni ng of D ece m ber 10, w hi l e Scot t and B eas el yw er e onl yabl e t o s t at e t hatt heydi d not r emem ber s eei ng R ockyatt he Zodi ac Bar t hatday . A s w i t h t he ot herpot ent i al w i t nes s es 44

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 44 

### I, do c. 3 at 2. Lun a a ls o state d that Scotttold her “ thatonthe night So ndra Campbe l l[wa s ] s uppos e d t o have t a l ke d t o Roc kyabouthow he c omm i tt e d the two mur de r s . . . [Sc ott ] . . . pos i t i ve l yr e m e mbe r s thatwhe n Roc kyc am e i nt o the bar, he went to another t able and d id no t s peak to So ndraatal l. ” I d. , d o c. 3 at 1 . H en ce, L un a’s rem emb ran ce o f ev en ts co ntrad icts S co tt’s acco unt. I tappe ar s thaton di r e c tappe a l , appe l l at e c ouns e lpri m ari l yr e l i e d on the statem en t inL un a’s af

f id av it reg ard in g C amp b ell b ein g a co mp u lsiv e liar. Ap lt. D ir. Ap p . B r. at 6 7 n .1 5 . H o w ev er, o n e cann o t escap e th at w h enR o ckyf iledh is d irect ap p eal, h e af

f irm ativ elyreliedo nth e in f o rm atio nf

ro mth e L un a af

f id av it w ith o ut anyqu alif

icatio n s, ev enth o u g hL un a’s h earsaystatem en t reg ard in g S co tt c ount e r e d Roc ky ’ s own tri a lt e s t i m onythathe wa s notatthe Zodi a c Baron the e ve ni ng of De c e mbe r10.

- 82- c o u n se l d id n o t ca ll t o tes tify a t trial, w e c a n n o t sa yc o u n se l’s fa ilu re to c a ll S c o tt a n d B e a sle yw a s s o u n re a so n a b le o r p reju d icia l to R o c k ya s to re su lt i n in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. Fi nal l y , R ockycl ai m s couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr es ent ps y chol ogi cal evi dence . H e as s er t s couns el s houl d have pr es ent ed evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hatdue t o m ent al i m pai r m ent s , R ockyw as eas i l ym ani pul at ed by peo ple he t rust ed. R ock yasser t s such ev i den ce w ou l d h ave f urt hered h i s defen se t hatA l l en engi neer ed a s i t uat i on i n w hi ch R ockydr ove t he St al l i ngs t r uck fr om A d a to H a rt s h o rn e a n d th e re fo re c o u ld b e f ra m e d fo r t h e fle a m a rk e t c ri m e s . T h e e v id e n c e in d ica tes th a t in 1 9 7 9 R o c k yu n d e rw e n t a p sy c h iatric eval uat i on atE as t er n St at e H os pi t al i n V i ni t a, O kl ahoma, t en y ear s pr i or t o t he fl ea mar ketcr i m es , w her e he w as s ubj ectt o an exa m i nat i on t hatr evea l ed he ha d a v e rb a l IQ o f

7 3 , a p e rfo rm a n c e IQ o f 9 6 , an d a f

u ll sc a le I Q o f

8 3 . A c c o rd in g to

### Ro ckywas r ee xam ined bya l ic ense d cli nica l psycholog is t i n 1 99 5, at 45 

### wh ic h tim e he had been in prison fo r at l ea stfive years fo r the fleam arket crim es . The 19 95 repo rtindicate d R ockyhad suf fered a number of h ea d inj urie s o v er th e co urse o f

h is lif e, an dth e cumu lativ e ef f ect o f th ese in j uries co u ldresu lt inco g n itiv e an dem o tio n al d ef icits g reater th anth e sumo f eachin d iv idu al in

j ury . Fed. HC , r ec ., vo l. II I, do c. 14 , i te mW. Ho wever, atle as t two of the hea d i njuri e s l i s t e d i n the r e portappe art o have oc c urr e d a ft e rRoc kywa s c har ge d and co nv ictedo f

th e f lea m ark et crim es. By1995, Roc ky ’ s I Q s c or e s ha d dr oppe d i n r e l e vantr e s pe c t s . He ha d a verbalIQ of

76 , aperform ance IQ of 85 , anda full s ca le IQ of 77 . The repo rt n o tedR o cky ’s “V erb al an dF u ll S cale v alu es are inth e b o rd erlin e m en tally defect ive r ange with the non -verbal s core in the mi ddleof thelow av e rage range .” I

d. ( e mpha s i s a dde d) . Li ke wi s e “ [m ]e a s ur e s of hi ghe rc ogni t i ve func t i oni ng found i nform at i on pr oc e s s i ng s pe e d t o be bor de rl i ne i mpa i r e d for ea syto proces s i nf

orm at ion andin the mil d/m od er at elyimpair ed rang e for m ore complex re as on ing tas ks.” I d. The r e portc onc lude d thatRoc ky ’ s “ ve rba land ove r a l labi l i t i e s [we r e ] i n the bor de r l i ne i nt e l l e c tua l l yi mpa i r e d r ange wi th nonverbalskil ls consis te ntlybett erand in the low average r ange.” Id. Eve n wi th a f u ll scale IQ o f

7 7 , R o ckyrem ain edat th e h ig hen do f th e b o rd erlin e m en tally re tarded range si x years afte r the crim e.

- 83- t he eva l uat i on r epor t , t hes e s cor es pl ace d R ocky“att he t op of t he ‘ bor der l i ne r et ar dat i on’ r ange of

i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng. ” Fed. H C , r ec. , vol . I I I , doc. 14, ite m X . 

### T h e f

o llo w in g IQ ran g es w ere u sedat th e tim e o f R o cky ’s trial to de nom i nat e varyi ng l e ve l s of m e nt a lr e t ardat i on: bor de r l i ne m e nt a lr e t ar dat i on, 71 -84; m il d m enta l r et ardati on , 50-70 ; m od er at e m enta l r et ardati on , 35-50 ; s ever e m en tal retard atio n , 2 0 -3 5 ; p ro f o un dm en tal retard atio n , b elo w2 0 . SeeA MER 

### . P S YCHI ATR I C 

### A SS 

### ’ N 

### , D I AG NO S T I C AN D 

### S TA TISTICA L 

### M A N U A L O F 

### M E NT AL 

### D I SO RD ER S 

### 31- 32 (3d ed. 19 87 ). E v e n if c o u n se l er re d in fa ili n g to in v e stig a te 45 R ocky ’ s ps y chol ogi cal hi s t or yand pr es entevi dence of hi s bor der l i ne i nt el l ectual

### - 84-

f u n c tio n in g a t tr ia l, R o c k yh a s n o t s h o w n th a t a n ys u c h e rr o r p reju d ic e d h im . A l t hough he di d not pr es entps y chol ogi cal evi dence , R ockydi d pr es entevi dence th a t A llen m a n ip u late d h im in to d riv in g th e S tallin g s tru c k to H a rtsh o rn e . B yh is ow n t es t i m ony , R ockypl ace d hi m s el f att he St al l i ngs y ar d att he t i m e t he fl ea m a rk e t cr im e s w e re o c c u rrin g . E v e n if R o c k yw a s e a silym a n ip u late d b yh is br ot her , anys uch mani pul at i on acc or di ng t o R ockyr es ul t ed i n hi m bei ng att he S tal li n g s y ard at t h e ti m e o f th e c ri m es. T h ere fo re, ev iden ce reg ard ing R o ck y ’s p s y c h o lo g ic a l m a k e u p w o u ld n o t h a v e f u rt h e r a d v a n c e d h is o w n p ro ffe re d a lib i. C ouns el w as not i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr es entt hi s evi dence .
V Inef f ect i ve Ass is t ance of

Appel l at e C ouns el In lig h t o f

th e fo re g o in g d isc u ss io n , w e n e e d n o t d e v o te m u c h c o m m e n t to R ocky ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el cl ai m . R ockyr ai s ed t hi s i s s ue i n t he eve nt w e dee m ed pr ocedur al l ybar r ed t he cl ai m s he fa i l ed t o r ai s e on di r ect appea l and t her efor e dec l i ned t o addr es s t hem on t he mer i t s . O bvi ous l yw e t ook a differ ent pat h an d inst ead d et erm i ned t hat none of R ock y ’s B r ady or i neffect i ve assistan ce o f tri al co u n sel claim s h av e m erit . H av ing d ispo sed o f a ll o f R o ck y ’s c laim s o n th e m e rits, th e re re m a in s n o th in g fo r u s to re v iew in re g a rd to h is in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f a p p e llate c o u n se l ar g u m e n t.

### - 85- VI In c o n c lu sio n , R o c k yD a le S n o w is n o t en tit led to h a b e a s re lief p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d) for ei t her hi s B r ady or i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s. T he judgm ent of t he d i st ri ct cou rti s AFF I RM ED .