## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 W IL LI E P OLE , Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . A US T I N R ANDOL PH, A cti ng W ar den of Logan Correc tional Ce nt er, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 02 C3393

— Ch arl es R. N orgle,Sr ., Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 21, 2007

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 7, 2009

Be f o r e E AST E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd K ANN E a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . W i l l i e Po l e was co nvi cted o f firs t d e g re e m u rd er an d at te m p te d arm ed rob b er y in the S tat e o fI l l i noi s. H e a pp eal s the deni alo fhi s peti ti on for a w rit of hab e as c orpus , a r g uing tha t hi s a t t o r ney pr ovid ed i neffecti ve ass i sta nce a t hi s t ri aland on a pp eal. W e affi r m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fhi s pet i ti o n.2 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 I. W e begin w ith th e facts as p resen ted at tr ia l. B erna rd J acks on w ent to w or k on Septem ber27, 1994, even tho ugh i twa s h i s da y o f f

. Ac c o mpa ni e d b y h i s g i r l f r i e nd , Carm ani a Pay ton, and hi s s eve n-y ear - ol d son, Ter re n c e, he hop e d to earn som e ext ra m one y at the E & JTire Se rv i c e s ho p whe r e h e wo r k e d wi th hi s b r o the r, La r ue . B e r n a r d a r r i v e d a tth e s h o p a f e w h o u r s b e f o r e i t s 7p . m. closing tim e, j oining his broth er an d an oth er w o r k er, A ntoi ne Pati l l o. Pati l l o l eft worka l i ttl e e ar ly th at day an d s hor tl y a fterhe l eft, W i l l i e Po l e a rr i ved atthe shop l o o k i ngf o r hi m . Po l e as k ed Lar ue wher e Pa ti l l o w as , a nd Larue t old hi m Pati l l o had j ust l eft. A s the two m en w er e t a l k i ng, a r e d v a n pu l l e d i nt o the s ho p. Th r e e m en i n the van wanted to exchange the v an’ s t i re s w ith r epla cem ents they w er e ca rr yi ng i n the b ack ofthe vehi cl e. Even though the sho p’s own erwas abo ut to cl ose f or th e d ay, Bernar d offer ed to st ay and change the ti re s. W h ile B er n ar d w a i t ed on th e m en in t h e v an , Po le as k ed Lar ue whethe r the thr ee men w ere m embe r s o fthe G an gs te r D isc ip les st re et ga n g. L ar u e rep lied th at h e d id not know. Pol e then used a payphone at t he sho p to m ake a cal l, and Larue left w ork to go to a nea rbyst or e. The s ho p’ s o wnerwentt o a b us i ne ss ne xtdo o r t o the ti r e sh o p, l ea vingBe r na r d t o wor ko n the v an . Pol e was a m em bero f t h e B lack sto ne ga ng, a ri valo f th e Gang st erDi sc i pl es . Af te r makinga pho ne c al l, he l eft th e sh op and metup wi tho th ermem be r s o fthe B lac k s t o n e s , in c lu d in g R am on H am ilto n . H e t old Ram on about the D iscipl es at the t i re sho p, and theyN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 3 hat c he d a pl a n t o r o b the Di s c i pl e s o f the i r j e we l r y . They d ro ve p as t th e sh op to ve rify th at th e m en w er e st ill th er e, a nd made gangs i g ns i den ti fy i ngthe m se l ve s an d di s pa r a g i ngthe i r r i v a l s . T he y p a rk e d a nd b e g a n t o a pp ro ac h th e t ire sh op th ro u gh th e a lley be h in d it. Po le pu l l e d u p hi s h o o d t o h i de h i s f a c e . R a moncar r i e d a hand gun and w or e a sk i m ask

. T w o of th e m en that Po le bel ieved w ere D isciples w ere s t a nd i ngn ear the v a n a tthe t i me. T he thi r d wa s i ns i de the s ho p. Ca r man i a P a y t o n a nd T e r r e nc e we r e a l s o s t a nd

i ngne arthe v an , a few fee t awayfr o m Be r na r d a s he w or ked to c h ange the t i re s. The sho p’s own erwas j ust retu rning b e cau se som eon e had com e to tellhim there was g o i n gt o b e t r o u b l e a tth e s h o p . Aft e r a s k i ng Bernar d i f eve ry thi ng w as al ri ght, the shop’ s ow ner turned t o w alk a w ay. A s he turned, he he ar d a gunshot

. Altho ug h P o l e no w deni es tha t he pul l ed th e tr i g g er, he l ate r tol d the pol i ce t h at Ram on s how ed hi m how to r el ea se th e sa fety, a nd he po i nt ed th e g un a t th e Disc i ple s s tandi ng nea r the v an and fir ed. H e was st an di ngf o r tyo r fi ftyfee t away fr o m hi s ta r g eta t th e ti m e. The b adl y a i m ed bul l ets tr uckBernar d i n the ba cka nd e xited thr o ug h h i s ch es t. He fel l t o the g r o und i n fr o nto fhi s g i r l f r i en d and son, e xc l ai m i ng, “ Ithi nk I ’ m hi t. ” The s hop’s o w ner cal l ed f orev er yone to ge t dow n. W i l l i e Po l e a nd R am on H am i l ton fl ed the scene. W hen eve ry thi ng appeared to be cl ear, eve ry one st oo d up e xc e ptBe r na r d. Po l e pl ac ed th e g un in h i s ca r, b utthe n aba ndo ne d the ca r . He a nd Ra m on fl ed i n s epa r at e di r ec ti o ns . La r ue4 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

re turned t o a fra nti c sc ene. The police and an am bul ance w er e s um m oned, and Bernar d w as pronounced dead at a ne arbyho spi ta l l ess th an a n h o url at er . La r ue a nd oth er w itness es at th e scen e to ld t h e po li ce abo ut Pole’s vi si t to th e sh o p, hi s i nqui r y ab o ut th e m en i n th e van, an d th e car th at d rove by fl ash ing gan g sign s b e fo re th e s h o o t i n g . T h e p o l i c e b e g a n t o l o o kf o r the car . At ab ou t t h is s am e t im e, P ole sh ow ed u p atR a m on H am ilton’ s ho use. Ram on’ s t w el ve- yea r- ol d si ste r, A nd re a H am ilto n, an s w e r e d t h e d oo r. P ole as ke d h er to w alk w ith h im to ret rie ve h i s c a r b ec au se th er e w er e p olic e in the a re a. A s An drea and Pol e wal ked to t h e c ar , they m et K ar en W i l l s, a f ri end ofA nd rea’ s, an d she j oi ned th em i n the wal kb ac kt o the c ar . W he n the y g o t to the ca r, Po l e rem ove d a g un a nd a g l o ve fr o m the c ara nd hand ed them to A n d re a, ask i ng herto hi de them f or hi m . He to l d he r he ha d sh o t a “S i pe, ” i
. e. , a Di sc i pl e, a nd he inst ructe d her to pla ce the gun i n the f ro nt o fher pants. A l l thr ee enter ed th e c arand Pol e dro ve A nd re a ho m e. Andr ea hi d the g un, s ti l l l o aded exce pt f o r the si ngl e s pent bul l et, i n a dra w erand pla c ed the gl ove o n her dress er . A fterdro pp i ng An drea off, Pole t ol d K ar en W i l l s tha th e h a d c o nfr o nt e d s o me Di s c i pl e s a nd fi r ed a s h o ta tth e m. T w o p olic e o ffice rs sp ot t e d P ole an d W ills sh or tly ther eafter, i n a c arm atchi ng the descr i pti on g i ven by wi tne s s e s t o the c r i me. T he y t o o kthe t wo i nt o c us t o dy an d at ap p roxim ately 8: 30 p
. m . , w itness es fr o m t he tir e shop confi rm ed that Pol e w as the m an w ho ha d as ked ab o ut th e al l eg ed Di sc i pl es a nd the n fl as he d g an g si gns s hor tl y b ef or e the sho oting. W i l l s t ol d the pol i ceN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 5 th at sh e d id n otkn ow w h a t w a s g o in g on , bu t t h at P ole ha d g i ve n a pa ck ag e to Andr ea H ami l to n. Po l e an d W i l l s th enl ed th e pol i ce t o the Ham i l to n h o m e. I n the m ea nt i m e, Ra m o n H am i l to n h ad ar r i ve d ho m e an d l ea r ne d tha t Po l e ha d a sk ed And r ea t o hi de th e g un. R am on to ok th e g u n from A n d re a’s d ra w er an d h id it ou ts id e h is h ou se . W h en th e p olic e a rriv ed , A n d re a t old them she had gi ven the gun t o Ram on, wh o subseque nt l y ha nde d over t o the po l i ce o ffi ce r s bo ththe g un an d the g l o ve . Po l e’ s n am e w as wri tt eno n the g l o ve . The offi cer s t oo k P ole , W i l l s, Ram on a nd A nd re a Ham i l ton a nd the Ha mi l t o ns ’ mo the r, Bo nn i e , t o the p o l i c e s t a t i on f orquesti oni ng. Two o ffi ce r s que st i o ne d Po l e atfi r st
. He t o l d the m he had g one to the ti re shop to see Pati l l o, w ho o w ed h im som e m oney . A fte r h e s aw the thre e m en he bel i eve d wer e Gang st erDi sc i pl es , he wenta round th e co r ne r a nd told som e of his coh orts from the B lac k s t o n e s that there w er e “ Si pes” a t the ti re sho p. The B lac ks tones g ot i nto two c ar s an d dr o ve pa stthe ti r e sh o p. Po l e to l d the officers that, atRam on’ s s ugges ti on, the Blac kst ones dec i ded to r o b th e Di sc i pl es . R amon r et r i ev ed a g un f r o m hi s house , a nd Po l e to l d the o ffi ce r s he wenta l o ng because he was co ns i dered a “pi geo n” o r a “ w hi te boy ” am ong the B lackston es an d he w an ted to pro v e him self. I n this firs t s tat em ent, Pol e t ol d the pol i ce that Ram on was s ho wing hi m ho w to wor kthe s afety o n the g un when i t ac ci den ta l l y di sc ha r g ed i n the di rection o fthe va n. Po l e to l d the o ffi ce r s th athe pa ni ck ed an d r an . A fte r q u es tio n in g R am on , th e o ffice rs ca m e b ac k t o P ole and tol d him hi s s tor y di d not m atch Ram on ’ s v er si on6 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

K a re n W il ls ’ s tat em ent is not partofthe rec ord on ap peal 1 butPol e s eem s to conc ede thathe r t ri al t es t i m ony was c onsi st ent w ith her w ri tt en s tat em ent. Bon nie H am il ton w as p resen t f or the q u estion ing of b oth R am on an d A nd rea b eca u se the y w ere m ino rs. of e ve n ts . Po le t h en to ld th e o ffi c e r s a st or y s im ilar to h is fi rs t a ccount, but thi s t i m e s tat ed that Ram on was w ear i ng a skim ask, and that R am on d i re cted Pol e t o p ut up his hood as they w alked t hrou gh the alley tow ard th e ba c k of th e tire sh op . In th is sec on d ve rs ion , P ole admi tt ed th athe po i nt ed th e g un a t th e m enne arthe van and fi re d a singl e s hot bef or e fl eei ng. The pol i ce o ffi cer s a n d an a ssi sta nt st ate ’ s a tto rney ( “AS A”) , To m Bi es ty, the n i nt er vi ewe d Andre a an d Ra m o n Hami l to n, a nd Kar enW i l l s as wel l, t ak i ng w ri tte n sta tem ents f ro m ea ch befo re r etur ni ng to Pol e t o record his statem en t. A SA B iesty t ook A nd rea H am il ton ’s 1 sta tem ent a t 1 : 30 a. m . , and she c on fi rm ed that Pol e had ask ed herto walkt o th e carwith hi m . S he r epor ted tha tP o l e t o l d h e r h e h a d s ho ts o meo ne a tth e t i r e s ho p, and that they m et up w ith K ar en W i l l s o n the w ay to Po l e’ s ca r . S he s ai d t ha t P ole a sk ed he r t o hi de th e g un an d g l o ve o nc e th eyr ea ch ed th e ca r . S he ha d g i ve n the g un t o h er b r o th erRa m o n whe n h e ca m e ho m e as k i ng about i t. Both An drea and Bonn i e H am i l ton si gned eac h page o fA nd re a’ s s tat em ent. At 4 : 20 a . m . , a ppr o xim at el y ni ne ho ur s afte r the shoo tin g, A SA B i esty r eco rded Ram on’ s s tat em ent. Ram on t ol d Bies ty that Pol e ca m e to hi s ho use a fterN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 7 sp ot tin g t h e G an gs te r D is c ip les atth e t ire sh op . Po le as k ed Ra m on f o r a g un s o tha t he c o ul d r o b th e Blac kst ones of thei r j ew el ry . Ram on a nd Pol e dro ve past the s hop i n separ ate car s, Ram on with thr ee othe r Blac kst ones

— Lontra y, Thadd eus a nd Thom as

— an d P ole dri vi ng be hi nd them i n hi s o w n ca r. T he gr oup fl ashed g ang s igns a nd the n pa r k ed i n the a l l eyb eh i nd the sh op . R am on rel eased th e safety on the gu n a t P ole’ s r eque st, a nd Po l e th enwal k ed to war d the sh o p a nd fi r ed a sh o t atthe Di sc i pl es . The t wo fl ed i n di ffer en t dir e c t i o ns b utme tu p a g a i n l a t e r . P o l e t o l d R a montha t h e h a d g i v e n the gu n t o A n d r e a . R a mo n w e n th o me an d r et r i ev ed th e g un fr o m Andr ea a nd hi d i t ne arthe sid e o f h is h ou se . B ot h R am on an d h i s m ot h er , B on n ie H am i l ton, si gned each page ofhi s s tat em ent. A SA B i esty then m et w i th Pol e t o ta ke hi s s tat em ent. T h e s h oo tin g h ad oc c u rre d be tw ee n 7 a n d 8 p .m ., an d it w as now 6: 45 a. m . , approx im ate l y e l eve n hours after Pol e had be en ta ken into custo dy. A s ASA Bi esty l ate r te st i fi ed, he s at ne xtt o Po l e, r ea d hi m hi s r i g ht s, a nd w ro t e o u t P ole ’s s ta te m en t b y h an d . B ies ty h ad P ole re ad b a c k t o hi m the fi r s t pa r a g r a ph o f the s t a t e m ent t o m a ke ce rt ain th at P ole co u ld rea d an d u n d er st an d it. In th e st at ement, Po l e admi tt ed he w as a mem be r o fthe Bl ac k st o ne g an g . He t o l d Bi es tytha t afte r see i ngthe thre e m en atthe ti re s h op , he went to Ram on’ s ho use and m et w i th Ram on, Lontr ay, Thadd eus a nd Thom as, fello w B lac ks to n es th at P ole id en tifie d on ly b y t h eir fi rs t nam es. Ram on s ugges ted thattheyr ob the Di sci ple s o fthe i r j e we l r y . R amo n t o l d the g r o up tha th e h a d a gun. Pol e t ol d A SA B i esty that he too k the gun fro m8 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 Ra m o n a nd tha t th eythen d rove up to the a l l eyb eh i nd the t i re sho p. There , Pol e put o n a white work gl ove m ar ked with hi s nam e, the s am e g l ove l ate r re tr i eve d f ro m Ram on’ s house. H e pu l l ed up the hood o fhi s s w eat
shi rtand Ram on put o n a s kim as k. They ag re ed that Pol e would hol d the g un on the Disc i ple s whil e Ram on se ar c h ed th eir p oc ke ts an d to ok th eir j ew elr y. P ole ask ed Ram on t o tak e the sa fetyo ffthe gun, and Ram on co m pl i ed. Po l e to l d ASA Bi es tythathe “ po pped a r o und o f f ” a tth e D i s c i p l e s a n d th a th e a n d R a mo n th e n fl e d. P ole s ai d that he r etur ned to hi s ca r w i th A nd re a, to ld her he had “popped ” s om e Di sci ple s, and as ked herto hi de th e g un and g l o ve . Po l e si g ne d e ac h pa g e o fthe sta tem ent a nd al so i ni ti al ed a ch an ge i n the spel l i ng o f Ram on’ s nam e. Ram on pl ed gui l ty to m urder and atte m pted arm ed ro bber y, but Pol e went to tr i al

. Pol e’ s a tto rneym ove d to supp re s s a nyo r a l o r wr i t t e n s t a t e men t s tha tP o l e ma de the nig hth e wa s a r r e s t e d, c l a i mi ngtha th e wa s n o tr e ad his rights p riorto i nt erroga t io n , that his statem en ts w ere no t m ade kno wi ng l y o r v o l unt ar i l y, tha t hi s l en g th y i nter ro gat i on co nti nued afterhe invoke d his r i ght t o re m ain s il ent a nd hi s r i ght t o an at torney, thathi s s tat em ents w er e the r esul t o fphysi caland psychol ogi cal co er ci o n, tha t hi s st at ement s wer e pr o vo k ed byc o nf r o nti nghi m wi the vi den ce o bt aine d i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Fo u rt hA m en d m en t, an d th at a u t h o rit ies lied to P ole in vi o l at i o n o fthe F i fthand F o ur te en thAm en dm en ts
. Co uns e l s oughta nd o b t a i ne d a h e a r i ngo n the mo t i o n t o s up pr es s. At the he ar ing, the S ta te pr es en te d t es ti m o ny f r om th e pol i ce o ffi ce r s i nv o l ve d i n P o l e’ s ar r es t an dN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 9 i nter ro gat i on, and A SA To m B iesty, al l o fwh om r efuted Pol e’ s alleg atio ns. Pol e’ s a tto rneydi d not ca l l Pol e a s a w i tnes s a nd p r e s e nt e d n o e v i de nc e a tthe h e a r i ng, relyi ng entirely on cross-exa m inations o f th e state’s w itn es se s to m ak e his c as e. H e arg u ed th at P ole w a s o n ly ei g ht ee n y ea r s o fa g e atthe t i m e o fthe i nt er r o g at i o n, had lim i ted educati on, had neverbee n i nter ro gat ed bef or e, wa s in custo dy f orm any ho urs bef or e he si gned the c onfess i on a nd di d not g i ve the s tat em ent v ol untari l y. The cour t fo und thatthe sta te’ s witnesse s were cre dibl e, th at Pole ha d been ap p rised of his ri gh ts p riorto i nt err o g at i o n a n d th a tth e r e wa s n o e v i d e n c e o fc o e r c i o n . The cour t deni ed the m oti on t o supp re ss. A t t h e t ria l, A n d re a H am ilto n te st i fied co n sis te n tly wi thhe r s i g ne d s tatem en t. Kar enW i l l s te st i fi ed th ats he had encountere d P ol e a nd A nd re a when she was w al king h om e on the day ofthe m urder. S he went w i th th em to retri eve P ole’ s car. W he n t h ey arrived at the ca r, sh e s aw Po l e g i ve Andr eaa b l ac k, meta l o bj ec t, a nd he a r d h i m a s kAndrea t o “ pu ti tu p” f o r h i m. Aft e r dr o ppi ng o ffAndr ea a t he r ho m e, Po l e to l d Kar enW i l l s he had “ g o t t e n i nt o i t ” wi th s o me Di s c i pl e s a nd tha the ha d sh o t atthe m . W i l l s te st i fi ed th ats ho r tly the r ea fte r, s he an d Po l e wer e st o pped bythe po l i ce . After W il l s to l d the o ffi ce r s sh e ha d s ee n P o l e g i ve s o m ethi ngt o A nd r ea, the po l i ce o ffi cer s dr o ve the pa i r t o Andr ea ’ s ho us e. The of fi c e r s l a t e r e mer g e d f r o m the ho us e wi th a l l thr ee H am i l tons
. Pol e’ s w ri tte n confess i on w as enter ed i nto ev id ence, an d the offi cers an d A SA Biesty t e s tified ab ou t Pole’s10 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

o r ala nd wr i tt ena dm i ssi ons m ade wi th i n h o ur s o fthe m urder. A f or ensi c i nvest i gat orf orthe pol i ce dep ar tm ent t est i fi ed th at n o physi calev i dence w as f ound at the s cene, a gunshot re si du e t esto fPole’ s hands was tak en but he di d not know the resul t, and no b ull et ha d b ee n r ec o ve r ed be ca us e i t ha d pa ss ed th r o ug h the vic tim ’s bod y, ex iti ng his che st. O ne of th e officers te st i fi ed th at he f o und a sh el l ca sing m at ch i ng th e g un i n the g r as s ne arthe s ce ne . Po l e’ s at to rney a r g ue d t o the j ury tha t th e sh o o tingwas a cc i den ta l, tha t no r o bb ery w as i ntended and no st eps had bee n tak en to w ar ds a ro b b er y, an d th at th e g u n h ad d isc h ar ge d u n ex p ec te d ly w hi l e the sa fet y was be i ng m ani pu l ate d. The att or ney succes sfull y a rgued overthe pros ecuti on’ s o bj ecti on th a t th e j u r y s h o u l d b e i n s t r u c t e d o n i n v o l u n t a r y mansl aug ht e r a s a n a l t e r na t i v e t o mur de r . Th i s wa s no t a sm al l vi cto rygi ven t h at Pol e was char ged with m urder and atte m pted arm ed robbery, al l owing the s tat e t o ar gue that he ei theri ntentional l y s hot at the Di sci ple s o r that Bernar d Ja ckso n w as k i l l ed i n the cour se ofano ther fel o ny . Underthe fel o ny murde r the o r y, Po l e’ s ar g um en t that he di d not intenti onal l y s hoot atBernar d Ja ckso n w oul d n ot h av e e nti tl ed hi m to an invol untarym ansl aughteri nstr ucti on unl ess ther e w as som e e vi dence tha th e di d n o ti nt e nd t o c o mm i tr o b b e r y t o get her wi th e v i dence tha tthe s ho o t i ngwa s a c c i de nt a l

. Ex c e pt f o r Po l e’ s i ni ti als ta te m en t to the po l i ce , the r e was no ev i den ce in th e r ec o r d s uppo r tinga n i nv o l unt ar y mansl au g hte r c ha r g e. The c o ur t ca l l ed i t a cl o se i ss ue , b ut ga ve P ole th e b en efit oft h e d ou b t a n d iss u ed th e in vo lu n ta ry m an sla u gh te r in st r u c tio n . Pe rh ap s b ec au se P oleN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 11 h ad co n fes se d to atlea st f i v e d iffer en t p eo p le w ith in tw elv e hours ofthe m urder and had si gned a w ri tte n sta tem ent deta ilin g hi s a cti ons that ni ght, the j ury had l i ttl e t ro ubl e r etur ni ng a verdictfi nd i ng hi m gui l ty of m urder and atte m pted arm ed robber y. W h en th e in k w as ba re ly d ry o n th e v er d ict form , Po le b eg an co m p lain in g a t h is s en t e n c i n g h ea rin g t h at h e d id not com m i t the cr i m e, thathi s a tto rneyf ai l ed to pla ce i nto evi dence r epor ts that no g unshot res idue w as f ou nd o n hi s ha nd s o r hi s g l o v e , tha t he ha d wi shed to tes ti fy b ut had def er re d to hi s l aw yer ’ s j ud gm ent o ut o f fear, and that he had bee n m ani pu l ate d and coer c ed i nto si gn ing a co nfe ssi on. H e cl ai m ed he had bee n l ed to b e l i e v e th a tth e s t a t e ’ s a t t o r n e y w a s th e r e t o h e l p h i m, and that he was yo ung, i nexperi enced a n d exhauste d w he n h e signed the con fession. T he cou rt rej ecte d Pole’s cl ai m o fi nno ce nc e an d s en te nc ed hi m t o f o rty- f o ur years o fi m pri sonm ent o n the m urder charg e a nd fi ftee n yea rs o n the att em pte d a rm ed robber y c onvi cti on, to be ser ved co ncurr entl y.

II. I n h is direct ap p eal, Pole argued that t h e t r ial cou rt f ai l ed to a dequa te l y i nqui r e into hi s po st
- tr i alc o m pl aint that hi s l aw yerhad f ai l ed to cal l a w i tness w ith exculpator y e v id en ce. H e also conten d ed that the trial cou rt had err ed in all owing the j ury to hearev i dence r egar ding Pol e’ s m em ber shi p i n a s tr eetga ng. The excul pato ry ev id en c e, P ole ex p lain ed , con si st ed of tw o fa vo ra b le gunshot resid u e tes ts. Pol e co ntended that the swabs o f12 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 hi s hands and te sts o fthe glove w er e neg ati ve f or gunshot re si du e, and that the t ri alco urt should have conducted an in quir y into hi s char ge at sente nci ng tha t hi s a tto rneyf ai l ed to put i nto evi denc e th e neg ati ve guns ho t r e s i du e t e s t r e po r t s . Po l e di d no t s ub mi ttho se re port s with h is appeal

. The appel l ate co urt note d that Pol e had notadequatel y r ai sed the iss ue o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel bec ause he di d not r equest new counse l a n d fi l ed no pro sepos t-tri al m otion. T he cou rt ne ve r th el es s co ns i der ed th e m er i ts o f P ol e’ s cl ai m , a nd det er m i ne d tha t c ouns el ’ s st r at egy was t o i nf o r m the j ur y tha t th e g uns ho t r es i due t es t was cond uct ed but th atthe pr o se cut o r ha d no t pr es en te d th e re su l ts , l ea ving th e ju r y t o in fer th e re p or ts w ou ld h av e b ee n fav or ab le to Po l e. The a ppel l at e co ur t co nt i nue d tha t ev eni fthe att or ney e rr ed i n not going f ar therwith th is ev idence o r the tria l court er re d i n not pu rs uingPol e’ s a l l ega ti on about hi s l aw yer, ther e was no re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty th at th e out com e of th e trialw ou ld h ave be en any d ifferent had thi s e vi dence bee n adm i tted. The cour t no ted th at th e gun sh ot residu e tests h eld li ttle eviden tiary valu e i n l i ght o fPol e’ s s i gned confess i on a nd the othe r am p le evi dence ag ai nst hi m . Because the c ourtdi d not k no w the t es t r es ul ts f o r Po l e’ s ha nd s o r the g l o ve , a nd bec au se th e othe r eviden ce of his guil t w as ov erw hel m i ng, the cour t co ncl ud ed that Pol e had f ai l ed to show prej ud i ce fro m the al l ege d err or s. Addr e s s i ngP o l e ’ s c l a i m t ha tthe c o ur te rr ed i n a dm i tti ng ev i dence ofhi s g ang m em ber shi p, the appell ate co ur t f o und tha t this ev i den ce was hi g hl y r el ev an t to the cri m e char ged be cause the s hoot i ng was al l eged to beN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 13

m o ti va te d b y g an gr i va l r y. One o fthe thr ee men i n the re d v an had bee n w ear i ng the co l or s o fthe Gangster D isciples, an d Pole had aske d L aru e abou t the m en ’s gan g affil iation shortly before the sh ooting. M oreover, P ole had confess ed to a pol i ce o ffi certhathe went to co nfr o nt the Di sc i pl es b ec au se the Bl ac k st o ne s co nsi dered hi m a “pi geo n” o r a “ w hi te boy ” and h e w anted to pr o ve hi m selft o hi s fel l o w ga ngmem be r s. F i na l l y, the cour t r ej ecte d Pol e’ s a rgum ent about the g ang a ffi l i ati on ev id en c e b ec au se t h e s ta te h ad u se d th e e vid en c e o n ly f or p r o pe r p ur po s e s thr o ugho utthe t r i a l

. T he a pp e l l a te c ou rtth er efo re affirm ed P ole ’s c on vic tio n . Th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t decl i ned to hearPol e’ s ca se on di re ct ap p ea l. Pol e then fi l ed a pro sep et itio n f orpost
- convi cti on reli ef in th e state cou rt, citing th ree grou nd s fo r rel ief

. F i r s t, h e c o nt e nd e d tha th i s t r i a l a t t o r ne y wa s i ne ffe c t i ve f or fai l i ngt o pr es en t wi tn es se s atthe he ar i ngo n the m oti on t o supp re ss and fo r not al l owin g Po l e hi m sel fto tes ti fy a t the m oti on t o supp re ss. S eco n d , he a rgued that hi s t ri alco u n sel w as i neffecti ve because he f ai l ed to i nvest i gat e e xculpato rywitne ss es and eyewitnesse s t o th e c r i me , a n d d i d n o ta l l o w P o l e t o t e s t i fy i n h i s o wn defe nse. Thi rd, he c laim ed that hi s a pp el l ate co unsel w as al so i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to r ai se i n hi s di re ct a pp eal the i ssues he was now raisin g in hi s pos t- convi cti on p et itio n . H e filed n u m er o u s s ta te m en ts in s u p p or t o f h is p os t-c on vic tio n p et itio n inc lu d in g t h re e a ffid av it s o fh is own ( R. 13 , atC51, C57 a nd C61) , an a ffi davi t fro m A nd re a Ham i l ton ( R. 13, at C72) , an affi davi t fro m Ram on14 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

Li ke Pol e , Ra mons i g n e d a c o n f e s s i o n i n th e e a r l y mo r n i ng 2 hour s ofSe pt em ber 28 , 19 94 , fewer thant wel ve hour s a fter the m urd er. R am on exec uted his affidavit m ore than f our years lat er, i n N ovem ber 1998. H am ilto n (R . 13, at C 63 ), an a ffid av it fro m B on n ie H am il- 2 ton ( R. 13 , atC 78) , and sta tem ents f ro m hi s m othe r ( R. 13 , at C83) , si ste r ( R. 13, at C84 and C85) , and a fel l ow inm ate (R . 13, at C 81 ) su p p or tin g h is req u es ts for re lief. T h e c irc u it cou rt dism issed the p etition w it hou t an ev iden tiary he a r i nga nd P o l e a pp e a l e d. T he I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt took up Po le ’s c a se for a seco nd ti m e. I n re spon se to the st ate ’ s a rgum ent that Po l e ha d wai ve d the a r g um en ts he was no w ra i sing, the cour t r el axed the rul e f orwaive r because Pol e cl ai m ed i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce b o tha t tr i ala nd o n a ppeal

. The cour t there f or e deci ded to address P ol e’ s a rgum ents on thei r m er i ts. On the ineffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m bas ed on coun se l ’ s per f o r m an ce a t th e su ppr es si o n h ea r i ng, the appe l l at e co ur t r ev i ewe d the he ar i ngt r an sc r ipta nd deter m i ned that the c l ai m was w i thout m er i t. S peci fi cal l y, the c ourtnot ed that defe nse c oun se l’s str ate gy w as to pai nt hi s cl i ent a s s o yo ung, i nexperi en c ed a nd nai ve ab ou t t h e jus tic e s ys te m th at h is c o n fes sio n w as inv oluntary
. To that e nd , he c ro ss- exam i ned the s tat e’ s wit

ne sses an d a r g u ed his position to th e cou rt. Th e cou rt f o un d tha tc o un s e l ’ s c o nd uc twa s n o ts ub s t a nd a r d. I n a ddr e s s i ngP o l e ’ s c l a i m t ha th i s t r i a l l a wy e r f a i l ed t o i n v e s t i g a t e th e c a s e b y f a i l i ng t o l o c a t e a n d c a l l t wo eyew itne s s e s , Ram on H am il ton and Lon tray, th e cou rtN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 15

o pi ne d tha t th er e was no f ac tu alb as i s to s uppo r t th e c laim

. The co urt concl ud ed ( er ro neousl y, as i t turns o ut) that Ram on’ s a ffi davi t ind i c at ed thatRam on was not prese nt wh en the f atalsho t wa s fire d. Pol e had notsubm i tt ed ana ffi dav i t f r o m Lo nt r ay. B ec au se Ra m o n a nd L on tr ay c ou ld n ot h av e pr ov id ed te st im on y th a t w o u ld ha ve c ha ng ed th e o ut co m e o fthe t r i al, the c our t f o und th e argu m en t w ith o u t m erit. Th e cou rt therefore affi r m ed th e di sm i ss alo fthe po st
- co nv i ct i o n pe ti ti o n, and the I l l i noi s Su prem e Cour t a gai n decl i ned to hear th e a p p ea l. Po l e th enb r o ug hthi s ca se t o fede r al cou r t, s ee k i ng hab e as c orpus r el i efbas ed on ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o f counsel

. Pol e l i ste d tw o speci fi c i nstances o f i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o ftr i alco unsel : ( 1) cou n sel’ s r efusalto al l ow Pol e t o tes ti fy a t the hear i ng o n th e m oti on t o supp re ss; an d (2) c ou n se l’s fa ilu re to ad eq u at ely inv es tig at e h is case . Pol e co ntended that the m oti on t o supp re ss w as cri ti ca l t o hi s ca se b ec au se a s i g ne d, wri tt ens ta te m en t i m pli cating hi m i n the shoo ti n g w as the s tat e’ s be st ev i den ce. I nde ed, Po l e ar g ue d, the pr o se cut i o n h ad no physi calev i dence l i nki ng hi m to the cri m e a nd pre sented no e y e wi tne s s e s wh o c o ul d i de nt i fy the s ho o t e r . Mo re o ve r, the r e was no r ea l do wn si de to Po l e t es ti fy i ng, a nd n o c h an c e o f w in n in g t h e m ot ion w ith ou t P ole ’ s t es tim ony. Onlyhe coul d have provi ded evi dence that he was tr i ck ed i nt o s i g ni ngthe c o nfe ss i o n b ec au se he was e xtr em el y ti re d a nd hi gh on m ar ij uana, acco rdin g t o Pol e. H e a l so ar gued that ther e was n o strat egi c r eas on f or the f ai l ure to cal l hi m as a w itn ess atthe supp re ssi on hear in g. I n expla i ni ng co unsel ’ s inadequ ate i nvest i ga-16 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 ti on, P ol e noted thatthe affi davi ts he suppli ed const i tuted ne w ev i den ce tha t c o r r o bo r at ed hi s ac co unto fthe sh oo tin g a n d u n d er c u t t h e s ta te ’s t h eo ry . Th e n ew ev idence, acc or ding to Pol e, co nsi sted o f recanta ti ons of te st im on y of t w o of t h e s ta te ’s w itn es se s. Fin a lly, P ole ar gued that hi s a pp el l ate l aw yersho uld have r ai sed the ineffecti ve assi sta nce o fco unsel i ssue i n hi s di re ct ap p ea l. The dis tr i ct c ourtdeni ed Pol e’ s hab e as pe ti ti o n wi th o ut a he ar i ng . The cou rt a do pte d the f ac tu alfi ndi ng s o fthe I l li noi s appe l l at e co ur t i n i ts unpu bl i sh ed o r derde ci di ng th e di r ec t appe al

. The c o ur t be g anb y c o ns i der i ng w hetherPol e had ad eq uatel y pr ese nted hi s federa l cl ai m s t o the s tat e co urts bec ause any c l ai m notpre sente d to the s tat e’ s high es t co urt i s deem ed proce du ra l l y def au l t e d. Th e c o ur t a l s o no t e d tha t a fe de r a l c o ur t o n hab e as r ev iew co uld notco nsi der c l ai m s that a st ate cour t had deci ded o n sta te l aw gr ounds that w er e ind epend ent o fthe federa l questi on a nd adequate to s up po r t the j ud g men t
. Th e c o ur t no t e d a s a n e xam ple o f thi s r u le the i ssue ofwaive r, wh i ch i s co nsi dered an ind ep en d en t and ad eq ua te state l aw groun d that bars hab e as r el i ef

. The co urt al so note d, how eve r, thatwaive r bar s federa l r evi ew o nl y w h en t h e l astst ate co urt to consi der the qu esti on a ctual l y r el i ed on pro cedural d efa u lt a s t h e b as is for its d ec isio n . Tu rn in g t o P ole ’s c laim o fi ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns el, the c ou r t f o und th atPo l e r ai se d the se i ss ue s i n h i s di r ec t appe al, tha t th e I l l i no i s App e l l a t e Co ur t ’ s de c i s i o n wa s ba s e d o n i nd e pe nd

en t st at e g r o unds a dequa te t o sup p ort the j udg m en t, a ndN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 17

T his find ing is p u zz ling b eca u se the o nly issues Pole raised in 3 his d irect ap p eal w ere re lated to the f ailu r e o f h i s a ttorn ey to bri ng i n evi denc e ofthe f avor abl e guns hotr es i due t es t s an d t he t ri a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a l l o w e v i de n c e o fh i s g a n g a ffi l i a t i on. P erh ap s the d istrict co u rt m ean t to r efer to th e Illino is Ap p ellate C ou rt’ s d ecision on the a p p eal o f th e d ism issal of Po le’ s po stconvict ion peti ti on, w here P o le did rais e m any of the is sues he raises he re. H ow ev er, the Illino is A p p ellate C ou rt exp ressly dec l i ne d i n th at dec i s i on t o a ppl y wai ver t o Po l e’ s c l ai m s , an d the refo r e t h e d ecision w as no t ba sed on ind ep en d en t state gr ounds ade qua t e t o s uppor tthe c onvi c t i on. that the i ssues were ther ef or e pr oce d ural l y b ar re d und er 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. 3 T h e c ou rtn on et h ele s s co n sid er ed th e is su es on th eir m er i ts. The co urt rej ecte d P ole’ s cl ai m thathi s a tto rney was de fi ci en t f o r f ai l i ngt o c al l hi m as a wi tn es s atthe cr i ti ca l s uppr es si o n h ea r i ng, i ns te ad r el ying o n the st at e’s w itn e s se s. A c c or d in g t o P ole , i t w as u n re as on ab le to expect the st ate ’ s witnesse s t o supp or t Po l e’ s v er si on ofev ents. But the cour t decl i ned to sec ond-g uess c ounsel ’ s s tr ate gi c deci si on t o re l y o n cr oss - exam i nati on an d no t pr es en t Po l e as a wi tn es s. As fo r Po l e’ s co m pl aint th att r i alc o uns elf ai l ed to i nv es ti gate hi s ca se , the d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d th e s u p p or t in g a ffid av its ins u ffici ent. Repeating the er ro r that the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Cou r t m ade i n de ci di ngthe po st
- co nv i ct i o n a p p eal, the di stri ct c o ur t f o und tha t Ra m o n’ s affi dav i t i ndi ca te d he w as not prese nt at t h e tim e o fthe shoo ti ng, and that i nfo rm at i on s up pli ed by Ram on would nothave changed the outco m e o fthe tr i al, neg ati ng anycl ai m o f18 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 ineffec tive assistan ce. Fi na ll y, bec au se th e d istri ct cou rt h ad a lre ady co ncl ud ed that tr i alco unsel was not i neffecti ve, the cour t al so rej ecte d Po l e’ s cl ai m that h is a p p el l ate counselwas i neffecti ve f orf ailing to r ai se the i ssue of tr i alco unsel ’ s ineffecti venes s. The co urt ther ef or e deni ed Po l e’ s pet i ti o n. W i thi n ten days, Pol e fi l ed a pro semot ionf o r r ec o nsid er at ion , aga in c laim in g in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. W hi l e that m oti on w as pend i ng, Pol e fi l ed a notic e of a p p e a l f r o m th e c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n . He al so r eque st ed a cer ti fi ca te o fa ppea l ab i l i tyfr o m the d ist ric t cou rt
. T h e cou rt gr an te d th e ce rt ifica te o fap p ea lab i l i tya nd the n di smi ss ed th e m o ti o n t o r ec o ns i der

. The cour tf o un d tha ti tl a c k e d j ur i s di c t i o n o v e r the mo t i on to re consi der b eca u se it w as an unauthor i zed at tem pt to l i ti gat e a succe ssi ve col l ate ra lat ta c k on hi s s entence w i thout the per m i ssi on o fthe cour t o fappeal s. Pole then fi l ed an am ended no ti ce o fappealthatadded the deni al of the m otion to recon side r, and requ ested thatth is cou rt gr ant a cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty w ith r espectto that cl ai m . I n a n Or deri ssu ed o n J an ua r y 1 8, 2 00 7, we f o und that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n char acte ri zi ng the m oti on to re con sid eras a succes si ve hab e as peti ti on. W e hel d that the di str i ct c ourtshou ld have tr eat ed the m oti on a s a tim ely fi l ed m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on a nd deci ded i t o n the m er i ts. W e there f or e a m ended the ce rti fi cate o f a pp e a l a b i l i t y g r a nt e d b y the di str i c tc o ur tt o i nc l ud e th e d en ial of th e m ot ion for re c on sid er at ion a n d c on so lidat ed hi s appe alo fthe de ni alo fthe mot i o n t o r ec o nsi der wi th hi s o r i g i na l a ppea l o fthe de ni alo fhi s pet i ti o n.N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 19 S ee generally Polev. Fi rkus , Ca s e No s . 0 6

- 2 7 6 8 & 0 6

- 3 281, O rd er (7th C ir. J an . 18, 2007 ). W e now cons ider P ole’ s appeal s.

III. On app eal, Pole c onte nd s that he i s e nti tl ed to hab e as reli ef becau se his law yer’s assista n c e d id n ot satisfy consti tuti onalm i ni m um s. Pol e no w ci tes fi ve i nstance s ofco unsel ’ s e rr or s: ( 1) the f ai l ure to i ntro du ce the r esul ts ofthe gunshot re si du e test s; ( 2) the f ai l ure to i nter vi ew o r ca l l Ra m o n Hami l to n, a n e y ewi tn es s whos e te st i m o ny w oul d have e xoner ate d Pol e; ( 3) the f ai lu re t o i nter vi ew keypro secuti on w i tness es; ( 4) the f ai l ure to i nter vi ew o r cal l o theri denti fi ed eye w i tn es se s; and ( 5) the f ai l ure to cal l Pol e t o tes ti fy a t the suppress i on he ar i ng. Pol e a l so m aint ains tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c oncl udi ng that hi s e nti tl em ent t o hab e as r e l i e fi s p r o c e du r a l l y b a r r e d. The sta te counter s that Po l e f or fei ted any ar gum ent that th e s ta te c o u rtu n re as on ab ly in te rp re te d R am on H am ilton’ s a ffi da vit. M or eov er, the sta te add s, Pol e’ s hab e as p et itio n a r g u ed on ly tw o op er at ive fac ts in s u p p or t o f h is in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e c laim , forfe itin g or p r oc ed u ra lly def au l tinga l l o th er s i nc l udi nghi s co nt en ti o n ab o utc o unsel ’ s f ai l ure to p resent the gunshot r esi du e e vi dence. A dd re ssi ng Pol e’ s re m ai ni ng cl ai m s f or i neffecti ve as si stan c e in divi du al l y a nd as a w hol e, the sta te posi ts that Po l e ha s no t m ethi s bu r deno fde m o ns tr at i ngtha t co unsel ’ s per f or m ance fel l bel ow consti tuti onalm i ni m um s.20 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 A. W e m ust be gi n by sor ti ng o ut the appropri ate sta nd ar ds ofr evi ew and w he th er cer tai n cl ai m s hav e be enwai ve d o r pr o ce dur al l y def au l te d. Our r ev i ew ofthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o deny Pol e’ s ha bea s p et itio n is de n o vo , and i s gove rned by the ter m s o fthe A nti ter ro ri sm an d E ffec tiv e D ea th P en alt y A c t (“ A E D P A ”). M ac k v. M cCann , 530 F.3d 52 3, 53 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Julia n v . B a rtley, 4 9 5 F.3d 48 7, 49 1-9 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). S e e a l s o Ja c ks on v. Frank, 34 8 F
. 3d 658, 66 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ; 28 U
. S. C . § 22 54. “H abea s r el i efm ust no t be gr anted unl ess the sta te cour t’ s a dj ud i cati on o fthe cl ai m ( 1) r esul ted i n a deci si on tha twa s c o nt r a r y t o , o r i nv o l v e d a n un r e a sonab l e a pp li cation of, clearl y estab li sh ed Fed eral l aw , as de term i ned b y the S up re m e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es; o r ( 2) r es ul te d i n a de ci si o n tha t was b as ed o n an unr ea so nabl e dete rm i nati on o fthe f acts in ligh t ofthe evi dence prese nted i n the St ate co urt proce edi ng. ” Jul i an , 4 95 F. 3d at 49 2. Se eal s o Jac ks on , 3 48 F.3d at 662 ; 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254(d ). “In assess ing the reason ablen ess of the stat e cou r t ’s d ecision, th e federa l cou rt ass u m e s t ha t the state cou rt’s f ac t u a l d e t e r mi n a t i o n s a r e c o r r e c tu n l e s s th e d e fe n d a nt re buts them with c l earand con vinci ng ev i dence. ” Jul i an , 49 5 F .3d at49 2. See a lso 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254(e)(1)
. The Sup re m e Court setf or th the l ega l pri nci ple s that go ve rn cla im s o f ine ffec tiv e as sis ta n c e o f co u n se l in St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U .S. 66 8 ( 1 98 4). See a lso Wiggins v. Sm ith , 53 9 U.S
. 51 0 ( 2003 )
. “An i neffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m has tw o com ponents: A peti ti onerm ust show that c ounsel ’ s per f or m ance was defi ci en t, an d thatN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 21 the defi ci ency prej ud i ced the defe nse. ” Wiggi ns , 539 U
. S. at 521 ( ci ti ng St r i ckland, 46 6 U.S
. at68 7)
. To dem onst ra te th atc o uns el ’ s per f o r m an ce was de fi ci en t, a “ defen dan t m ust s how thatco unsel ’ s r epres entat i on fell bel ow an obj ecti ve standard ofr eas onabl eness . ” St r i ck l and, 46 6 U
. S. at688 ; Wiggi ns , 5 39 U. S
. a t 52 1. Tha t o bj ec ti ve s ta nd ar d of re as on ab len es s, in tu rn , i s d et er m in ed by p re va ili n g p ro fes sio n al n or m s. St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at68 8; Wiggi ns , 53 9 U.S
. at52 1. To de m o ns tr at e pr ej udi ce fr o m c o uns el ’ s defi ci en t perf or m ance, a “def endant m ust s how thatther e i s a re aso n ab l e pr obab i l i ty that, but f orco unsel ’ s unprofessi onaler ro rs , t h e re sul t o fthe proce edi ng would have been differ ent. A r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty i s a pro babi l i ty su ffic i en t t o u n d er m in e c on fid en c e in th e o u tc om e.” St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S. at69 4. I fa defe nd ant i s unabl e t o m ak e a su ffi ci en t sh ow ing o n e i th erc o m po ne nto fthe St r i ck l and sta nd ar d, w e need not consi der the o therco m pon en t. St r i ck l and, 466 U .S. at 6 97
. Se eals o P e ars on v. Cal l ahan , 129 S. C t. 808, 82 1 ( 2009 ) ( re affi rm i ng the hol ding of St r i ck l andtha t l ea ve s to t he s o und di sc r et i o n o fthe l o we r c o u r t s t o d e t e r mi n e th e o r d e r o fd e c i d i n gthe tw o com p one nt s). “[ I ] ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns el i s a sing l e g r o und f orr elie f n o m att erhow m any f ai l i ngs the l aw yerm ay have displ aye d.” P eop les v. U nited Sta tes , 403 F. 3d 844, 84 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. W e as se ss c o uns el ’ s wor ka s a whol e, a nd “i t is the o ve r al l de fi ci en t per f o r m an ce , r athe r tha n a speci fi c f ai l i ng, that const i tutes the gr ound o frelie f

. ” Id

. U n d er Sec tio n 22 54 ’s e x h au st ion req u ire m en t, th e p et i-22 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 t i o n e r mu s ta s s e r th i s f e de r a l c l a i m th r o u g h o n e c o mple te ro und of sta te- cour t r evi ew , ei thero n dir ect appeal o r in p os t-c on vic tio n p ro c ee d in gs . See § 2 25 4(b )(1) (A ); St e ve ns v. M cBr i de, 489 F.3d 88 3, 89 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), cer t . d enied , 12 8 S . C t
. 24 29 (20 08 ); Lew is v. Sternes , 39 0 F
. 3d 1019 , 10 25 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. Adequa te pr es en ta ti o n o fa c l ai m t o the st at e co ur ts r equi r es the pe ti tioner t o pr es en t bo ththe oper ati ve f acts and the l ega l pri n c ip les that contr olea ch c laim

. St e ve ns , 48 9 F .3d at89 4. Seea ls o Thom pson v. Ba tt aglia , 458 F. 3d 614, 61 6 ( 7th Ci r. 2 006) ( noti ng tha t the Rul es Gover ni ng S ecti on 2 254 Cases i n the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Courts re quir e a peti ti onerto speci fy a l l gr ounds ofr el i ef available to him an d th e facts su p p orting eac h groun d ). Thu s, i fa peti ti onerf ai l s t o ass er t in th e st ate co urts a parti cul arf actualbas i s f orthe cla im of i neffecti ve ass i stance, thatpart i cul arfac tualbas i s m ay be c onsi dered d efa u lte d

. St e ve ns , 489 F.3d at 894 ( “t h e f ail ure to al ert the s tat e co urt to a co m pla i nt ab ou t o ne as pect o f cou ns el’ s assistan ce w il l lead to proce d ura l d efault”).

1. A cknowle dgi ng thes e f am i l i arst andards, the sta te ass er ts ther e i s a “wri nkl e” i n deter m i ni ng the co rr ect st an dar d o fr ev i ew he r e. Th e st at e no te s Po l e’ s ar g um en t th a t both the sta te ap p ell ate cou rt and the d istri ct cou rt des cr ibed Ra m o n Hami l to n’ s affi dav i t i na cc ur at el y, a nd th at, accord ing to Po le , this w as an un reason able d eterm i nati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evi dence pres ented i n the sta te cour t pr oce edi ng under § 225 4( d)( 2)
. A l though c on c ed in g t h a t b o th co u rt s d id , in fac t, re ad th e a ffid av itN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 23 in c or r ec tly , th e s ta te arg u es th at P ole forfe ite d an y c laim unde r § 2 25 4( d) ( 2) r eg ar di ngRa m o n’ s affi dav i t byf ai l i ng to pr es er ve i t i n th e di st r i ct co ur t. The st at e furth er m ainta i ns tha t, e ve n i fPo l e ade qua te l y pr es er ve d the i ss ue in th e d ist ric t c ou rt, w e s h ou l d n ev er th ele ss ap p ly § 22 5 4 (d )( 1) deferen ce to th e po rtions of the state cou rt anal ysi s that were u n affecte d by the st ate appel l ate cou rt’s f a ctu al find ings regard ing Ra m on H am il ton ’s affi davi t. W e co nsi der the cla i m o ff or fei ture fi rs t. Look i ng to P ole ’s p lea d in gs in t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, w e n ot e firs t t h at, in hi s hab e as pet iti on, Pole correctly des cribed Ram on’s af f i davi ti n de t a i l a nd a t t a c he d i tt o h i s p e t i t i o n. R
. 1

- 1. In h i s br i efo n the hab e as pe ti ti o n, he a r g ue d tha t th e state cou rt “erron eou sly con clud e d th a t R a m on’s affi davit d i d not pl ace hi m atthe scene. ” R. 31 , at14
. A fte r quoti ng Ram on’ s a ffi davi t t o i l l ustr ate the sta te cour t’ s e rr or, Pol e’ s co unsel ar gued that thi s “ gr oss m i sre p re se n ta tio n of th e c on te n ts ” o f R am on ’s a ffid av it, in com b i nati on with the othe r affi davi ts subm i tte d, prove d th at th e state cou rt un reason ably ap p li ed th e f acts
. La ter, w hen i t be cam e a pp ar ent that the d ist ric t co urt had nonethel ess m ad e the sa m e m i sta ke as the s tat e a pp el l ate cour t, Pol e a gai n poi nt ed o ut the er ro r i n hi s m oti on f orr eco nsi derat i on. W e fi nd thatPol e a deq u atel y pr ese r ve d fo r r ev i ew hi s cl ai m unde r § 2 25 4( d) ( 2) tha t th e sta te appell ate co urt m i sr ead Ram on’ s a ffi davi t, and i ts dec i si o n was thus b as ed, a t l ea sti n pa r t, o n “ anunr ea so nabl e d et er m inati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evi dence p re se n te d in t h e St at e c ou rtp ro c ee d in g.”24 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 As we no te d, b o ththe state and di st r i ctc o ur ts c o ncl ud ed f ro m the affi davi t that Ram on w as not pres en t at the s hoot i ng. Th at concl usi on was i nexpli cabl e. Ram on st at ed i n the a ffi dav i t th athe b roug htthe g un t o the c on fro n tat i on a nd thati t di schar ged as he a nd Lontr ay both tr ied t o take the gun fro m Thadd eus in or der t o set th e s afety . R. 13 , atC63, ¶¶ 11

- 15
. By e ve r y a cc o unto fthe cr i me , i n c l u d i n gth e s t a t e ’ s v e r s i o n, R a mo n wa s p r e se nt a tth e s h o o t i n g . I n d e e d , R a mo npl e d g u i l t y t o th e s a me m u rd er an d at te m p te d arm ed rob b er y c h ar g e s t h at P ole f aced. Pol e has thu s c lear l y a nd co nvi nci ngl y r ebutte d th e det er m i na ti o n tha t Ra m o n was no t pr es en t atthe shoo ti ng. The q uesti on now i s what effect that er ro r has on o ur r evi ew o fPol e’ s cl ai m s in g ener al

. The st ate posi ts that, ev en i fPol e pr ese rv ed t h at cl ai m , and w e fi nd that he di d, § 2 25 4( d) ( 1) de fer en ce s ho ul d s ti l l a ppl y t o a ny part ofthe sta te cour t’ s an al ysi s that was notaffecte d by that er ro r. Pol e doe s no t a rgue o ther w i se. I n Wiggi ns , t h e S up re m e Cour t a nal yze d a hab e as cla im ba se d o n i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns elwher e th e sta te cour t m ade a si m i l arf actualer ro r i n i ts anal ysi s o f W i ggins’ cl ai m . 53 9 U.S
. at52 8. W i ggins’ l aw yercl aim ed to ha ve be ena war e o fs ev er e se xua l abus e hi s cl i en t suffer ed as a chi l d, ci ti n g tw o docum ents the l aw yer p ossess ed

. Th e law yer clai m ed that, based o n th e inform at i o n c o nt aine d i n the se do cument s, he m ade a n i nform ed and reason ed de cision n o t t o pu rsu e the history of abu se furthero r prese nt i t t o the j ury i n m i ti gat i on a t sen ten cing. A s the state con ce d ed on ap p eal, how ever, ne i th erdo cumentc o nt aine d a ny i nf o r m at i o n abo utthe s e x u a l ab u s e Wi g g i n s s uf f e r e d a s a c h i l d

. T h e S u p r e me Co ur ts t a t e d:N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 25 The s ta te c o ur t’ s as su m ption th atthe r ec o r ds do cum ente d i nstance s o fthi s abuse has bee n shown to be incor re ct b y “ cl earand convinci ng ev i de nce, ” 2 8 U .S.C . § 22 54 (e)(1 ), an d refle c ts “a n u n re as on ab le deter m i nati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evid en ce p resen ted in th e State cou rt proc eed ing,” § 2254 (d)(2). Thi s par ti alr el i an ce o n a n e r r o ne o us f ac tu alfi ndi ng furtherhi ghl i ghts the unr eas onabl eness o fthe sta te co ur t’ s dec i si o n. Wiggi ns , 53 9 U.S
. at52 8. The Wiggi ns Courthad other g r o unds f o r fi ndi ngc o uns el ’ s per f o r m an ce de fi ci en t but cl ear l y use d thi s s i ngl e f act u al erro r to supp or t i ts concl usi on that the st ate co urt’ s deci si on was unrea son able un d er the sta nd ard s o f § 2254
. W e w il l th erefore c on sid er th e fa c tu al e rro r re ga rd in g R am on ’s a f f i d av it i n c o m bi na ti o n wi thhi s o th erc l ai m s i n de te r m i ni ng whetherthe s t a t e c o ur tu nr e a s o nab l y a pp l i e d St r i ck l and to th e fac ts h er e. Se eWiggi ns , 53 9 U.S
. at52 0 ( “W e hav e m ade cl earthatthe ‘ unreas onabl e a pp l i cation’ pro ng o f § 22 54 ( d) ( 1) pe r m i ts a fede r alhabe as c o urt to ‘g r an t th e wri t i fthe s ta te c o ur t i den ti fi es the c orr ec t g o ve r ni ng l eg alpr i nc i pl e from thi s Co ur t’ s dec i si o ns b utunr ea so nably ap p li es th at p rinciple to t h e fact s’ ofpet iti one r’s case . ”).

2. Od dly, the state c onced es i n one part ofi ts bri efthat the g uns ho t r es i due c l ai m was f ai r l y pr es en te d t o a nd adj ud i c a t e d b y the s t a t e a pp e l l a t e c o ur t ( Br i e fo f Respondent-Ap pel l ee, at24 , ( 7th Ci r. A pr. 25 , 20 07)26 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 (h er ea fte r “S ta te ’s B rie f”)) , bu t t h e n lat er arg u es th at P ole pr o ce dur al l y def au l te d th e g uns ho t r es i due cl ai m i n the sta te cour t ( St ate ’ s Bri efat32

- 33)
. Fa i r prese ntm ent o fan i ssue re quir es a peti ti onerto put fo rw ar d both the o perativ e fa c ts an d th e c on tr ollin g leg al p rin c ip les

. S a nde r s v. Cott on , 39 8 F.3d 57 2, 58 0 (7th C ir. 20 05 ). Se eal s o Bal dwin v. R eese, 541 U
. S. 27, 32 ( 2004 ) ( “or dinar i l y a st ate p risoner d oes not ‘f airl y pres en t’ a cl aim to a state cou rt ifthat cou rt m us t read beyon d a pet iti on or a b r ief (ora si m i l ardocum ent) thatdoes n ot ale rti t t o the pr ese nce ofa fed er al cl ai m i n or der t o fi nd m ate ri al, such a s a l o wer co ur t o pi ni o n i n the c as e, tha t do es s o . ”)
. Acco r di ng to the sta te, the sta te cour t hel d that Po l e di d not a dequat e l y r a i s e the i s s ue o ft r i a l c o un s e l ’ s i ne ffe c t i v eness f orf ai l i ng to pre sent the gunshot r esi du e r esults . R . 1

- 1, A pp x. 1, at A

- 9. On di re ct appeal, the sta te c ou rt i nd eed sai d that Po l e had notadeq u at ely r ai sed the i ssue of i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce r el at ed to the g uns ho t r esi due evi denc e, but the co urt then nonethel ess address ed tha tc l a i m o n the me r i t s . T he c o ur tf o un d tha tc o un sel w as no t ineffective bec au se he placed before the j ury the f act that the r esi du e t esthad bee n ta ken and that the pr os ec u ti on had notput the re sul ts i nto evi dence. The sta te cour t f ound itwas a re aso nabl e s tr ate gy to im plyto the j ury that the r esul ts f avo re d Pol e. Because co uns elo n a ppea l a lso di d no t su bmi t th e r es ul ts o fthe gunshot re si du e t estto the sta te ap pel l ate co urt, that cour t al so f ound that Pol e f ai l ed to show prej ud i ce fro m cou ns el’ s failure to place the ac tu al test results before the j ury. Si m i l ar l y, i n post- convi cti on pro ceedi ngs, the sta te appell ate co urt re fused to tr eatthe cl ai m o fi neffec ti veN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 27

ass i sta nce o ftr i alco uns el as waive d because Pol e had a lso alleg ed ine ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f ap p ella te co u n se l. T he state p ost-c onv iction cou rt thu s ad d ressed Pole’s c laim of in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o n th e m er its , ex p re ss ly fi nd i ng that, und er these ci rcum sta nces, “st rict app l i cati on o fwaive r shoul d be r el axed to gi ve defe nd ant a f ai r opportunity t o prese nt hi s a rgum ent. ” P eoplev. Po le, N o. 1- 99- 0858 , at4 ( I l l. A pp . 1 Dist
. A pri l 13 , 20 01)
. That Pol e m ay have f ai l ed to abi de by a sta te p rocedural rul e doe s no t nec ess ar i l y pr ecl ud e thi s cou rt fro m h ea rin g his cla im
. See H a rris v. R eed, 48 9 U.S
. 25 5, 26 2 ( 1989 ) ( “a federa l cl ai m ant’s proce du ra l def aul t pr ecl ud es federa l habea s r evi ew , like d i re ct r evi ew , o nl y i fthe l ast sta te cour t r enderi ng a j ud gm ent in the case r est s i ts j ud gm en t on th e proc ed ura l d e fa ult.”). “[T]he sta te cou rt m u st actual l y hav e r el i ed on the pro ceduralbaras an i nd ependent basi s f ori ts dispos i ti on o fthe case . ” C aldw el l v. M i s s i s s ippi, 472 U .S. 32 0, 32 7 (1 98 5). See a lso Harris , 489 U
. S. at 261- 62. The Suprem e Court al so set a “p lain st at ement ” r ul e to g o ve r n th e an al y si s o f wh eth er the sta te cour t re ste d i ts j ud gm ent on a proce du ra l d efault: “[A ] pr o ce dur al def au l t do es no t ba r co ns i der at i o n ofa federa l cla i m o n ei therdi re ct o r habeas r evi ew unl ess the l astst ate co urt re nd er i ng a j ud gm ent in the case
‘ cl ea r l y a nd e xpr es sl y ’ s ta te s th ati ts j udg m en t r es ts o n a sta te proce du ra l bar. ” Harris , 4 89 U. S
. a t 26 3 ( quo ting C aldw el l , 47 2 U.S
. at32 7). S e e also Sm it h v. B attaglia , 41 5 F. 3d 649, 65 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( sam e); Sa nd e rs v. Cot t on , 39 8 F. 3d 572, 58 0 ( 7th Cir. 20 05) ( w here the sta te appell ate cour t’ s di scussi on o fwaive r i s in te rt w i ned w i th i ts m er i ts anal ysi s, the sta te cour t’ s deci si on does not r est28 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

o n a n i nde pen den t an d ad eq ua te st at e l aw g r o und)

. The sta te can poi nt to no such st ate m ent he re , and i nd eed th e l as t st at e co ur t to c ons i derthe g uns ho t r es i due i ss ue e xpr es sl y de cl i ne d t o r est on a pr o ce dur alb ara nd instea d d e c id ed the issu e on th e m erits. W e the refore d ec lin e t o fin d th at th e c laim w as p ro c e d u ra lly defa ult ed i n the sta te cour t. B u t t h e s ta te is co rre c t t h at P ole d id n o t a r g u e, in ei therhi s hab e as p eti ti on o r hi s br i efi n the dist ri ct c ourt, the i ssue ofhi s la w yer ’ s f ai l ure to prese nt the gunshot r e s i du e t e s t, a nd the r e f o r e f o r fe i t e d i ti n fe de r a l p r o c e e din gs . Se eM ar t i n v . Evans , 38 4 F
. 3d 848, 85 3 ( 7th Cir

. 20 04) ( a defen d an t w ho f ai l s t o prese nt a speci fi c g ro und o f tr i alco unsel ’ s ineffecti venes s in the dist ri ct c ourthas w aiv ed th e is su e). Se ealso St e ve ns , 4 89 F
. 3d at8 94 ( th e f ai l ur e to a l er t a st at e co ur t to a c o m p lai nt a bo uto ne aspect ofco unsel ’ s a ssi stan c e w il l l ead to a proce du ra l d efa u lt) , P eop les , 4 03 F
. 3d at8 48 ( “o ne who make s an d l o se s a con te nt i o n tha t co uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve f o r f o ur re aso ns cannotst ar t o ver b y c hoos i ng f our differ ent ( or f ou r add i ti onal ) f ai l i ngs t o em phasi ze”)
. A party m ay not ra ise an iss u e for th e first tim e on a p p e a l. D om ka v
. P ortage C o u n ty, Wis consin , 523 F.3d 776 , 783 (7th C ir. 20 08 ) ( wher e a par tyr ai se s a spec i fi c ar g um en t f o r the fi rs t t i m e o n appeal, i t i s wai ved eve n though the “ gener al i ssue” was bef ore th e di str i ct c ourt )
. Pol e cl ai m s that hi s fi l i ngs in the dist ric t courtwere re ple te w i th refer ences to hi s l aw yer ’ s f ai l ure to ra i se the r esul ts of th e g un sh o t r es i due t es ts
. S i m pl y r efer r i ngt o the gunshot re si du e t est, o fco u rs e, is no t e nough to pre ser ve th e in effe c tiv en es s is su e fo r re vie w in t h is c o u r t
. Kunz v
.N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 29 D eFe li ce, 53 8 F
. 3d 667, 68 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (fai l ure adequa t e l y t o p r e s e nta n i s s ue t o the di s t r i c tc o ur twa i ves th e issue on ap p eal). Pol e deta i l s hi s r efer ences to t he gunshotr esi du e t est i n th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n h i s r e p l y b r i e fo n a p p e a l

. We r ec o untthe m he r e to d emon st r at e why we fi nd the i ss ue for feit ed . F irs t, P ole st at es th at th e is su e w as rais ed in th e st at e appe l l at e co ur t’ s d eci si o n o n di r ec t appe ala nd th at th e st at e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n, in tu rn , w as “d isc u ss ed ” in h is f e d er al hab e as peti ti on. I n the hab e as p et itio n, Po le c om p lain ed th at th e s ta te ap p ella te co u rt, in ru lin g on h is dir ec t ap p eal, f aul ted hi m f orf ai l i ng to fi l e a post
- tr i al m oti on cl ai m i ng i neffecti ve assistance, f ai l i ng to r equest appoint m ent o fnew counsel, and m aki ng o nl y a ge nera l st ate m ent r ega rdi ng the ev i dence he b el i eve d shou ld ha ve bee n p resen ted at tri al. Pole then noted , “H ow ever, t h e e v iden ce P etitioner referr ed to w as a balli stics rep ort that concl usi vel y s how s that n o gunshot re si du e was f o und o n the gl o ve s he a l l eg edl ywas wea r i ngwhenthe f atalsho t a l l ege dlywas fi re d.” R. 1- 1, at ¶ 72. This passag e i n the hab e as pet iti on m erely recoun ted the sta te cou rt’s rul i ng o n dir ect appeal

. But si m p ly re hashi ng ano ther c ourt ’ s r ul i ngo n the s ubj e c t, wi tho uts up pl y i ngs up p orting facts an d l egal argum en t, is not enou gh to al ert the dist ri ct cour t that he w as ra i si ng thi s i ssue as a b as is for h is c laim of in effe c t i v e as sis ta n c e. Se eWi ns e t tv. Was hi ngt on , 1 30 F
. 3d 26 9, 2 73

- 74 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 7) ( wher e th e o nl y r efer en ce t o the v o l unt ar i ne ss o fa c o nfes si on i n a h a b e as p etition i s a recap itulation of th e state trial cou rt’s rul i ng o n the subj ect w i thout f acts o r l ega l ar gum ents in su p p or t o f a c laim of in vo lu n ta rin es s, th e c laim is30 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

w ai ved)

. S eco nd , i n hi s hab e as b r i ef, P ole no te s th athe fi l ed affi dav i ts i n s uppo r t o fhi s po st
- co nv i ct i o n pe ti ti o n, d e t a i l i n gwh a th a p p e n e d o n th e n i g h to fth e s h o o t i n g . He re c ou n ts info rm at ion from on e o f th os e a ffid av its : “P et it i o ne r wa s a r r e s t e d l a t e r tha t ni g ht a nd t a k e n t o a pol i ce sta ti on, w h er e th e pol i ce c hecke d his hands f orgun- shot re sid u e. T h e t es t p ro v ed n eg at ive .” R . 31, at 7. B u t P ole utter l y f ai l ed i n the hab e as br i efto devel op any l ega l ar gum ent that his lawyer ’ s fa i l ure to put thos e r esul ts i nto e vi d e n c e c o n s t i t u t e d i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e . T h e s e t wo m en tions of the gu ns hot res idu e test w ere the only referen ces Pole m ad e in th e d istri ct court before th e c o urt den i ed hi s pet i ti o n. A fterthe dist ri ct c ourtr ule d a ga i nst hi m , Pol e a l l ud ed to the gunshot r esi du e test a thi rd ti m e, i n hi s pro se mo t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . R
. 4 1
. T h e r e , f o r th e fi r s tt i me i n federa lpro ceedi ngs, he a rgued that i fhi s a tto rneyhad pr es ent ed th e sc i en ti stwho c o nduc te d the t es t an d the r es ults of the t es t, he woul d ha ve b ee n abl e to pr o ve he was notthe s ho o te r . I n the mot i o n f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n, Pol e pos ite d thatthe gunshot re si du e t estwould al so ha ve s ho wn th athi s si g ne d c o nfes si o n was unt r ue a nd c oe rc e d . H e a lso arg u ed th at R am on ’s a ffid av it w ou ld ha ve ex p lai ne d w hy th e gun sh ot residu e tests w ere ne g at i ve , na m el y b ec au se Po l e was no t to uch i ngthe g un when i t accide nt al l y di sc ha r g ed. Po l e at ta ch ed th e g unshotr esi du e r epor t t o hi s m oti on f orr eco n sid er ati on before the di st r i ctc o ur t. Thi s th i r d r efer en ce t o the gunshot re si du e t est s ca m e t oo l ate , however, to pre ser ve the i ssue f orappeal

. A rgum ents ra i sed o r devel oped f or th e firs t t im e in a m ot ion to rec on sid er are ge n er allyN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 31

Based on o u r re v ie w ofthe rec ord, Pol e has never pres ente d 4 any evidence thatthe ab se nce of gu nshot res idue d em onst rat es with a ny certai nty thathe was no tho l di ng the gun when the f at al sho t w as fi re d. He ha s pr es en t ed n o e vi denc e, e xpe rtor oth erw ise, inter p retin g the re sults of the g u nsh ot resid u e tests. W e the re f or e c ann ots ay whethe r the t es twas c onc lusi ve on the i s s ue o f whe the r h e wa s h ol di ngthe g unwhe n i tdi s c ha r ge d, or whethe r, f or e xa m pl e, he coul d have w as he d offan y r es i due i n th e t i me b e t we e n th e c r i me a n d h i s a r r e s t
. Onth i s r e c o r d, we s i m pl y do n otkno w th e val ue ofthi s e vi denc e. I ndee d, on di re c tappe al, the I l lino i s Cour tofAppea l s c om m en t ed, “Th e abs en c e ofguns hotr es i due doe s no tm ea n thatthe pe rs on tes te d d id not handle or fir e the w eapon.” P eo p le v . P o le, C ase N o . 1-9 6 -1 0 3 0 , at 11 (Ill . A p p . 1 D ist . D ec . 22 , 19 9 7 ). d ee m ed forfe ite d

. M ung o v. Tayl or, 35 5 F
. 3d 96 9, 97 8 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). In a fou rt h refe re n c e, P ole arg u ed in h is re plybr i efo n th e m oti on t o re consi der that the gunshot re si du e e vi dence w ou ld h ave shown thati t was i m possibl e f orhi m to have fi re d the f atalsho t. R . 5 6. 4 A gain, argum en ts raised i n a m otion t o rec ons ider are ge n er ally d ee m ed forfe ite d

. M ungo , 3 55 F
. 3d at9 78
. I n a fi fth r efer ence, Pol e r epeate d the argum ent fr om hi s pro se re plybr i efi n hi s pro senot i ce o fappeal, a gai n to o l ate
. R. 42
. A nd si xth ( an d fi nal l y) , i n hi s pro sebr i efi ng o n hi s r e qu e s tf o r a c e r t i fi c a t e o fa pp e a l a b i l i t y, P o l e s t a t e d, “i t i s furtherhi ghl i ghted that Pet i ti onerdi d not fi re a g un th at ni g ht be ca us e sh o r t [ si c] afte r th e shoot i ng hi s hands and al l ege d gl ove w er e test ed f orgunshot re sidue. Both t est[ si c] yi el ded nega ti ve. ” R. 74 , at5. T h is re fer en c e a lso is to o la te to rais e t h e is su e, an d in an y c as e, in thi s fi na l i ns ta nc e, Po l e m en ti o ns the32 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 g uns h o t r e s i d u e t e s t o n l y i n th e c o n t e x t o f b o l s t e r i ng t he i m port ance o fRam on Ham i l ton’ s a ffi davi t a nd pote nti al tes ti m ony. Only the fi rs t t w o re fer ences cam e be f or e the di str i ct cou rt ruled on th e pe titi on for hab e as r el i ef

. N ei thero ftho se r efer en ce s co nt aine d an y th i ng r es embl i ng ana r g um en t th atc o uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve f or fail i ngt o pr es en t th e gunshot re si du e e vi dence attr ial

. I n the hab e as peti ti on itself, Pole l isted only three b a s es for his claim of ineffecti ve ass i sta nce: ( 1) the failu re to cal l Pol e a s a witnes s at th e m ot ion to su p p re ss ; (2) th e failu re to ad eq u at ely invest igate the c a s e w hich l ed to the fail ure to secu re th e r ec an ta ti o ns a nd o th era ffi dav i ts c o r r o bo rating Po l e ’ s a c c o un to fthe i nc i de nt; a nd ( 3 ) the fai l ur e o fa ppel l ate counsel to ra i se i neffecti ve ass i sta nce b y t ri al counsel

. N owh er e in hi s hab e as pe ti ti o n or brie fdi d he devel op a l ega l ar gum ent that hi s l aw yerwas i neffecti ve f o r f ai l i ngto i nt r o duce the r es ul ts o fthe g uns ho t r es i due tes t. A l l o therr efer ences ca m e t oo l ate i n m oti ons to re c on sid er an d su b se q u en t p lea d in gs w h en P ole co u ld have ra i sed the ar gum ents ear l i er . Pol e offer s no j usti fi cati o n f o r f ai l i ngt o de ve l o p the a r g um en t ea rli er i n the federa l pro ceedi ngs. The i ssue i s thus f or fei ted. Win sett, 130 F.3d at 274 (ap p ell ate cou rt m ay not c o n s ider a hab e as ar gum ent that was notpre sente d to the di st rict cou rt).

3. The sta te agr ees that two o fPol e’ s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m s wer e f ai r l y pr es en te d t o a nd a d j ud i ca te d o n theN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 33

me r i t s b y th e s t a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t, a n d th a tth o s e c l a i ms wer e no t pr o ce dura l l y de f au l te d. Acco r di ngt o the sta te, Pol e pr op er l y pr ese rv ed cl ai m s that co unsel was in effe c tiv e (1 ) for fa ilin g t o c all P ole as a w i t n e s s a t h is supp re ssi on hea ri ng; and ( 2) f orf ai l i ng to i nvest i gat e Ra m o n Ham il ton a nd Lo nt r ay . S ta te ’ s Br i efa t 24, 5 0. The sta te concedes that th e dist ri ct c ourter re d i n fi nd i ng a “c om p let e p ro c ed u ra l d efa u lt.” W e t h er efo re w ill add re ss thos e cl ai m s o n the m er i ts below

. The st ate conte nd s that Po l e f or fei ted the o thercla im s he now r a i s e s o n a p p e a l b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h o s e c l a i ms i n the di st r i ctc o ur t. I n pa r ti cul ar, the s ta te mai nt ains that Pol e di d not a rgue i n the district c ourtthatco unsel was i ne ffec ti ve whenhe f ai l ed to i nt er vi ew k eypr o se cuti on witn es ses ( A nd re a a nd Bonni e Ham i l ton and K ar en W i l l s) and f ai l ed to i nter vi ew o r cal l otheri denti fi ed eye w i tness es ( Thad deus and Thom as, J r. )
. H avi ng r evi ew ed Pol e’ s pl eadi ngs in the sta te cour ts and dist ri ct cour t, we fi nd thatPol e a de q u at ely r ai sed bo th the l ega l an d f ac tu albases f o r the c l ai m s r el at ed to the pr o se cut i o n wi tn es se s. I n both the s ta te c o ur ts a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t, he a tt ac he d the a ffidav i ts tha t f o r m ed th e b a s i s o f th es e c laim s. P ole d id n ot, ho w ev er , arg u e in hi s hab e as br i efi n the distric t courtthatco unsel was i ne ffec ti ve forf ai l i ngt o i nv es ti g at e Tha ddeus a nd Tho m as J r . , the put at i ve a ddi ti o na le y ewi tn es se s to the c rim e, an d th er efo re th at cla im is forfe ite d b e c au se it is p re se n te d for t h e firs t t im e o n ap p ea l. Wins et t, 1 3 0 F. 3d at 274. I n s um , we wi l l a ddr es s o n the mer i ts Po l e’ s cl ai m s that t ri alco unsel was i neffecti ve i n ( 1) f ai l i ng to call P ole as a w i tness atthe supp re ssi on hea ri ng;34 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 ( 2) f ai l i ngt o i nv es ti g at e Ra m o n Hami l to n; a nd ( 3) f ail i ng to i nt er view th e pr o se cut i o n wi tn es se s ( Andre a an d Bonnie H am i l ton a n d K aren W i l l s) , wh o, i n part, l ate r re canted thei r tes ti m ony.

B. A s we note d above , i n or der t o m ake o ut a cl ai m f or i neffecti ve ass i sta nce, a p et i ti onerm ust s how bo th that his law yer’s perform an ce fel l below a n objective stan d ard ofr eas onabl eness as m eas ured bypre vai l i ng pro fess i onal n or m s, and al so that the pet i ti onersuffer ed prej ud i ce a s a r e s u lt of c ou n se l’s e rro rs . St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at68 8; Wiggi ns , 53 9 U.S
. at52 1. W hen w e are r ev i ew i ng a St r i ck

l and c l ai m thr ough the l ens o fthe A ED PA , i n or der t o preva i l, the peti ti onerm ust dem onst ra te that the s tat e co ur t’ s adj udi ca ti o n o fthe cl ai m ( 1) r es ul te d i n a deci si on t h at w as contr ar y t o, o r i nvol ved an unre asonab l e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabl i shed federa l l aw , as deter m i ned b y the S up re m e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es; or( 2) r esul ted i n a deci si on that was bas ed on a n unreaso nabl e det er m inati o n o fthe f ac ts i n l i g hto fthe evi dence pres ented i n the sta te cour t pr oce edi ng.

1. W e turn fi rs t t o tr i alco unsel ’ s fa i l ure to cal l Pol e a s a w i tn ess atthe supp re ssi on hea ri ng. Counself ai l ed to cal l any w i tn ess es at the s up press i on hea ri ng, i nstea d re l yi ng on hi s cro ss- exam i nati on o fpro secuti on witnesse s t o m a k e his case. Th e state ca ll ed tw o police officersN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 35

an d th e s ta te ’s a tt or n ey , eac h of w h om int er vie w ed P ole in th e h ou rs foll o w in g h is a rre st . Th ey te st ified th at P ole was a dvi se d of his right s an d no t m i st r ea te d i n a ny manner, thathe r ead and und er sto od the confess i on wri tte n ou t by th e sta te ’s att or n ey , an d th at h e ap p ea r e d c a p ab le ofundersta nd i ng wh at w as happ eni ng. Pol e’ s l aw yer ar g ue d t o the s ta te t r i al c o ur t th at, a t th e ti m e o fthe i nter ro gat i on, Pol e w as ei ghtee n and had a l i m i ted educat i o n. T hi s wa s the fi r s tt i me he h a d b e e n i nt e r r o g a t e d, and he l acke d experi ence w i th the cri m i nal j usti ce s ystem
. Pol e’ s counselal so ar gued that he was hel d fo r a le ng thyt i me b e f o r e h e c o nfe s s e d, a nd tha tu nder the t ota l i ty of the ci rcum sta nces, hi s s tat em ent was not vol untary
. I n hi s a ffi davi ts, Pol e cl ai m s that, had he be en cal l ed to te st ify a t t h e s u p p re ss ion h ea r i n g , he w ou ld h av e t old th e co ur t th atthe o ffi ce r s ch aine d hi m t o the wal l o fthe i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m. R
. 1 3, a tC 5 1 , C 5 7a n d C 6 1
. T wo offic er s g av e h im a s n ac k a n d a d rin k a n d as ke d h im if he kne w abo ut the shoo ti ng a t th e g as sta ti on. W hen P ole to ld th e o ffice rs th at th e s h o o t i n g w as ac c id en ta l, o ne o fthe o ffi ce r s to o kback th e s na cka nd dr i nka nd cal l ed hi m a lia r. T he o thero ffi certo ok hi m to ano ther ro om and handcu ffed hi m to the w all ag ain. Pol e was ti r ed a n d h a d d i ffi c u l t y g e t t i n g i n t o a p o s i t i o n wh e r e he c o ul d s l e e p because h e wa s h a nd c uffe d t o the wa l l

. On t wo o r thr e e o c c a s i o ns , w hen he s t a r t e d t o f a l l a s l e e p, o ffi ce r s ca m e ba cki nt o the r o o m , wok e hi m up, a nd ask ed m or e quest i ons. A ccor d in g t o hi s a ffi davi ts, at the t i m e o fhi s inter ro gat i on, Pol e h ad been aw ake f or twe nty - f o urt o thi r tyho ur s, a nd had been se l l i ng36 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

na r co ti cs , s m o k i ngmar ij ua na , a nd dr i nk i ngr um i n the hours bef or e hi s a rr est
. Pol e would have te sti fi ed that he was no t i n a “ no r m alfr am e o f m in d, ” an d tha t he tol d the o ffi cer s he w as ti re d and needed sl eep. R. 13 , at C59. Eventual l y, acco rdi ng to Pol e, the sta te’ s atto rney to l d h i m tha t, i n o r dert o s av e hi m se l f, he s ho ul d s i gn a paper s ayi ng tha t R am on was the shoo ter
. Pol e s i gned th e p ap er w ith ou t re ad in g it inth e h op es o f“ g e t t in g it ove r. ” R. 13 , atC55. W e be gi n w i th t he pre sum pti on that co unsel r endered ade qua te a ss i sta nc e an d m ade a l l s i g ni fi ca ntde ci si o ns i n the exer ci se ofr eas onabl e pr ofess ionalj ud gm ent. Th o m pson v. Ba tt aglia , 4 5 8 F
. 3 d 6 1 4 , 6 2 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. To d eterm ine w he th er a confes sion is vol un tary, th e cou rt l o o k s atthe c ha r ac te r i st ic s o fthe de fen dan t an d the co nduc t o fthe int er r o g at o r s to de te r m i ne i fthe d efe n d an t’s w ill w as o ve rc om e b y c oe rc ion
. Gil b e r tv. M e r ch ant, 488 F.3d 780 , 791 (7th C ir. 2007) (w he th er a co nfes si o n was v o l unt ar y de pen ds o n the t otali tyo fthe ci r cumst an ce s su r r o undi ngtha t co nfe ss i o n, i nc l udi ng both the chara cter i stic s of the a ccused and the detai l s o f the inter ro gat i on that r esul ted i n the confess i on)
. A co nfe ssion is vol un tary if, cons idering th e totality o f th e circumst an ce s, i t i s th e pr o ducto fa r at i o na l i nt el l ec t an d fre e w ill, an d n otth e re su lt of p h ys ica l a b u se , ps yc h olo gicali nti m i dati on, o r decepti ve i nter ro gat i on t acti cs that have ove rco m e the defe nd ant’ s f re e w ill. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gil l aum , 372 F.3d 84 8, 85 6 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). Se eal s o Johns on v. P o lla rd, 55 9 F. 3d 746, 75 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( a co nfe ssi on i s invol untarywh en i t was gi ven i n ci rcum sta nces that w e r e s uffici en t to overbear th e con fessor’s free w il l)

.N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 37

W e not e thatPol e’ s affi davi tge ne ra l l y de ni es h e m ade an y 5 or a l s t a t e m e nt s i nc r i m i na t i ng hi m s e l f, an d t he a l l e ge d c oe r c i ve act ivity surround s only his s igned st atem ent. The po li ce of fic ers and a s s i s t a nts t a t e ’ s a t t or ne y t e s t i fi e d ( a nd the t r i a l c ourt f ou n d th e i r t e s t i mon y c r e dib l e ) th a tP o l e ’ s fi r s to r a l c o n f e s s i on cam e w ithin a few ho u rs of his arr iv al at the p olice statio n. Po le does no tal leg e tha tthe pol i c e offi c er s l i ed t o h i m duri ng th e e a r l i e r p a r t o f th e e v e n i n g , o n l y th a t th e a ss i st a n ts t a t e ’s at t or ne y m i s re pre s en t ed the c ont en t s ofthe s i gne d s t at em en t m u ch l a t e r. Th e sign ed statem en t w as w ritten at ap p ro xim atel y 6: 45 a .m . on Septem ber 28, 1994, nearl y twelve hou rs afterthe m urd er. M or eov er, coer ci ve pol i ce acti vi ty i s a n eces sar y pr edi cate to find in g th at a c on fes sio n is n otvo lu n ta ry . Colorado v. C onnelly, 479 U .S. 15 7, 16 3-6 4 ( 19 86 ); Gil l aum , 37 2 F
. 3d at 85 6. Co ur ts may co ns i der, a m o ngo th er thi ng s, the ag e , e xp e r i e nc e , e du c a t i o n, b a c k g r o un d a nd i nt e l l i g e nc e ofthe accuse d , t h e l ength ofthe questi oni ng, and other ci rcum stances su rro u n d ing the inter ro gati on wh en ev aluatin g w h et h er a c on fes sio n w as vo lu n ta rily g ive n . Jo hn son , 55 9 F.3 d at75 5. See a lso Gil l aum , 372 F.3d at 856 -57 (sam e). T he basis of Pole’s clai m of coercion i s tha t his i nt err o g a t o r s d e p r i v e d h i m o fs l e e p a n d l i e d t o h i m a ta t i me w hen he was m ental l y i m p air ed by hi s co nsum pti on o f m ar ij uana and rum i n the hours l eadi ng up to hi s a rr es t. 5 H e s ign ed th e p ap er s, h e c on te n d s, b ec au se h e w as to ld th ey im p lica te d R am on as th e s h o o t e r . H e d id n otte ll th e o ffi ce r s th athe was under th e in fl ue nc e o fr um and m ar ij uana but o nl y that he w as ti re d an d n eeded to38 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

I n Po l e’ s sign ed c onfes s i on, he c l ai m ed n ott o be unde r the 6 influence ofdrug s or al cohol atthe ti m e ofm a k in g h is s tat em en t. sleep

. H e also does n ot claim that the officers

6 thre a t e ne d h i m o r p hy s i c a l l y ab us e d h i m i n a nyo ther way . Po l e’ s l awy erdi d no t ca l l a ny wi tn es se s, b ut i nstea d rel i ed on cr oss - exam i na tio n ofthe sta te’ s wit

nesse s t o supp or t the m oti on t o supp re ss. The s ta te tr i al cou rt f ound that the st ate ’ s witnesse s were cre dibl e, that Po l e ha d b ee n r ea d hi s r i g ht s an d t ha t t he r e was no e v i d e n c e s upp o r t i n gh i s a l l e g a t i o n s o fc o e r c i o n . As we note d above , the sta te appell ate cour t, in p ost- convi cti on pr o ce eding s, f o und tha t co uns el ’ s per f o rm ance a t th e su ppr es si o n h ea r i ngwas no t defi ci en t. S pec i fi ca l l y, the sta te appell ate co urt f ound that counsel ’ s s tr ate gy ofcr oss exam i ni ng the st ate’ s witnesse s a nd ar gui ng Pol e’ s y outh and i nexperi ence to the t ri alco urt w as adequate. W e r ecent l y had the o ccasi on t o consi der whether re l yi ng so l el y o n a c ro ss- exam i na tio n ofthe sta te’ s wit

nesse s t o prove co er ci on fel l withi n the ra n ge o f c om p et en t le ga l rep re se n ta tio n . Se eB ynu m v. Le m m on , 56 0 F. 3d 678 ( 7th C ir. 2009)
. Bynum to l d his l aw yerthat, d u rin g h is in te rro ga tio n, th e p olic e t h re at en ed h im w i th v i ol ence w hen he a ske d fo r a l aw yer, handcuffed hi m t o a c ha i r f o r ni ne ho ur s, de pr i ve d h im of food an d wat er and r e fu s e d t o l e th i m g o t o th e b a th r o o m, a mo ng other thi ngs. Bynum ’ s l aw yerm ove d to supp re ss h is co nfes si o n but di d no t as k Byn um to te st i fy atthe h eari ng . I ns te ad, c o uns elque st i oned the o ffi ce r s whoN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 39 took B yn um ’s statem en t. T he of fi c ers con trad icted every p art of B yn um ’s claim of coercion, an d th e tria l c o urt f ound the o ffi cer s c re dibl e. Counsell ate r expla i ned that he di d not ca l l Bynum to the sta nd bec au se he di d not th i nkBy num w o ul d ho l d up u nde r c r o ss - ex ami nati o n. W e no ted thatBynum ’ s a c c ou nt o fthe i nter ro gat i on wa s t he onl y a va i l ab l e ev i den ce o fc o er ci o n. W e f o und th at an ex p ec ta tio n th at th e in te r ro ga tin g off ice rs w ou ld adm i t o n the sta nd thattheyused co er c ion t o f or ce Bynum ’ s co nfe ssi on w as m or e “ tel evi si on f antas y” than tr i alst ra tegy. A ny co m peten t l aw yerwould have e xp e c t e d the i nt e r r o g a t o r s t o de nytha tthe y c o e r c e d a su spe ct
. W i th o uta n a dm i ss ion t o wro ng do i ngb y the i n t e r r og at or s, B yn u m w as leftw ith n o e vid en c e t h at h is confess i on was co er ced. Beca u se a “ m oti on t o supp re ss al l ege dly in vo lu n ta ry c on fessi ons cannot succee d w ithou t at least som e evide nc e tha t the confess ions w ere co er ce d, ” an d b ec au se c o uns el ’ s r ea so n f o r k ee pi ng Bynum o ffthe sta nd was leg ally bas el ess , we concl ud ed that counsel ’ s acti ons fel l wello utsi de the ra nge o fco m pete n c e d e m a n d e d by at to rn ey s in cr im in al c as es . Bynum , 560 F. 3d at 684. W e hel d that the st ate co urt’ s co ncl usi on to th e co nt r ar y was a n un r ea so nabl e appl i ca ti o n o fthe St r i ck l andst an d ar d

. Bynum , 56 0 F
. 3d at 685. Pol e’ s ca se prese nts a si m i l arsi tuati on. Coun selhad onl y Po l e’ s t estim ony that, atthe ti m e o fhi s inter ro gati on, he was o bvio u sly und erthe i nfl uence o fdrugs and al cohol, he ha d been a w ake f ortwenty- f ou r to thi rty ho ur s , a n d th e o ffi c e r s c h a i n e d h i m t o th e wa l l i n a m anner that m ade i t difficu lt to sl eep and then w oke hi m up ev ery t i m e he tr i ed to f al l as l eep, ev en tho ugh40 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

A d efend an t’ s m en tal state is no t eno u g h a lon e to ren d er h is 7 co n fes sio n in v o lu n ta ry for su p p re ssi o n p u rp o se s. S ee C o n n elly , 47 9 U. S. at16 4- 65
. Al thoughm en t al c ondi t i on i s r el eva ntt o a defen dant ’ s su s c ept ibi l i t y t o c oe rc i on, the pol i c e i nt er ro gat or m us tha ve com m i t t ed wro ngful ac t s i n o rde r f or a c onfes s i on t o be s uppre s s ed a s the pr oduc tofc oe rc i on. he to l d the o ffi cer s th at h e needed to s l eep. M or e- 7 o ve r, o nl y Po l e co ul d t es ti fy tha t when he s i gn ed the c on fes sio n, h e d id so be c au se th e in te rro ga to rs to ld h im the c onfess i on i m pli cate d Ram on a s the s hoot erand not h im sel f

. W e do not know w hy Pol e’ s co unsel decl i ned to ca l l hi m t o the st an d bec au se the r e ha s be enno he ar i ng on Pol e’ s cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce an d P ole has s ub mi t t e d no affi da v i tfr o m hi s t r i a l c o un s e l

. P e r ha ps P ole ’s la w ye r w i s h e d to av oid th e p os sib ility th at P ole w oul d be i m peached at tr i alwith a ny te sti m ony he gave at a su p p re ss io n h ea rin g. SeePeople v. Sturgis , 31 7 N
. E. 2d 54 5, 5 48 ( I l l

. 1 974) ( “We the r efo r e ho l d tha t th e te st im on y of a d e f e n d an t o r d oc u m en ts vo lu n ta rily att est ed to by hi m i n conj uncti on with h is m oti on t o supp re ss evid en ce m ay not be intro du ced by the S tat e dir ectl y in i ts cas e in chi efbut m ay be use d fo r pu rpos es of i m p each m en t shou ld t h e d efend an t ch oose to testify at tr i al

. ”)
. Pol e’ s l aw ye r m ay al so have been concerned that the t ri alco urt w oul d en h an c e Po l e’ s s entence f or obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce i fPol e t est i fi ed a n d the cour t di sbelieved him

. In By nu m ’s case, w e had the be ne fi t of a full y deve l oped re cor d, i ncl ud i ng te sti m ony f ro m Bynum ’ s law yerexpl ai ni ng wh y he att em pted to prove c o e r c i o n u s i n go nl y th e p r o s e c u t i o n w i tn e s s e s . WeN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 41 f ound that co unsel ’ s per for m an ce was defi ci ent b ecause an attem p t to prov e coercion on the ba sis ofthe i nt err o g a t o r s ’ t e sti m ony a l o ne wi tho uta v a l i d r e a s o n t o do so w as “outs i de the w i de ra nge of pro fess i onal l y c om petent ass i sta nce. ” St r i ck l and, 466 U .S. at 6 90 ; B ynum , 56 0 F.3 d at68 5. W ith ou t k n ow in g c ou n se l’s re as on in g in th is case , we w i l l as sum e that c ounsel ’ s p er form ance was defi ci ent a nd m ove o n to the seco nd parto fthe anal ysi s. Pol e m ust s ti l l dem onst ra te, o f c ou rs e, thatany er ro r p rej u d ice d h im
. St r i ck l and, 466 U .S. at 6 93 ; Bynum , 56 0 F. 3d at 685. To s ucceed on the pr ej ud i ce pr ong of St r i ck l and, P o l e mus tde mon s t r a t e tha t, h a d h e t e s t i fi e d, th er e w as bo th a re as on ab le p ro b ab ilit y t h at h e w ou ld ha ve pr ev ai l ed o n the mot i o n t o s uppr es s an d a r ea so nabl e p r o b a b i l i t y tha th e wo ul d h a v e b e e n a c qu i t t e d. St r i ck l and, 46 6 U .S. at 6 94 ; Bynum , 560 F.3d at68 4. See a lso Thom ps on , 4 58 F. 3d at 620 ( a ha bea s pet i ti o ne r c l ai m i ng that a l aw yer ’ s f ai l ure to m ake a m oti on t o supp re ss w as i neffecti ve m ust p ro ve thatthe m oti on would have been m er i tor i ous)
. U nl i ke Bynum , w he re th e p rim ary evi dence ag ai nst the defendant w as the c onfess i on i tse l f, we cannot ass um e that Po l e would have bee n acq uitted had the m otion t o su p p ress been grante d ; there was c o ns i der ab l y mor e ev i den ce a g ains t Po l e th anthe si gned confess i on. I n a d d itio n to o ra l and w ri tte n confessi ons to the pol i ce o ffi cer s a nd st ate ’ s a tto rney , P ole had c o nfe s s e d t o And r e a Ha mi l t o n a nd Ka r e n W i l l s , and w as i m pl i ca te d b y Ra m o n Hami l to n a s th e sh o o te r . Pe r so ns o n the s ce ne i den ti fi ed hi m a s th e in d i vi dualwho ask ed abo ut thr ee m en i n the van and wh o l ate r drove b y flashing gang si gnal s. The pol i ce had a l so re cove re d42 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 th e m urd er w eap on along w it h a glove be aring Pole’s nam e. I n Pol e’ s o w n ver si on o fev ents on the night of the m urder ( w hi c h w e g l ean fro m the affi davi ts he has fi l ed w i th hi s ha bea s peti ti on) , Pol e co ncedes he cal l ed hi s fe l l o w g a ng memb e r s t o the s c e ne , tha t the g ro up had gon e ba ck to th e ti r e sh o p to co nfr o nt a m ember ofa com peti ng gang, and that he w as prese nt w hen th e fatal shotwas fi r e d d ur i ngthe s t r ug g l e t o s e tthe s a fe t y o n th e g u n . I nd eed , the on ly salient p oints on w hich Pole’s st o r y d i ffe r s fr o m th e s t a t e ’ s v e r s i o n a r e ( 1 ) wh e th e r t he s h o tw a s fi r e d a c c i d e n t a l l y b y h i s c o mpa t r i o t s a ta t i me w hen he was notto uc h in g th e gun, orwh etherPol e fi re d the s hot del iber ate l y; and ( 2) wh ether Pol e a nd hi s fel l ow gang m em ber s were ther e t o beat a gang ri valo r to ro b hi m . The di ffer en ce b etwee n P o l e’ s vers i o n a nd the sta te’ s ver si on of the shoo ti ng w oul d b e th e d iffer ence be twe enfi r stde g r ee m ur der an d i nv o l unt ar y mans l au g hteri fPol e had notal so been convic te d o fat tem pted a r me d r o b b e r y, an o t he r fe l o n y a r i s i n go u to fth e s a me ev en t. T h at is, if B er n ar d Jac ks on ’s d ea th w a s t h e re su lt o fthe a tt empte d a r m ed r o bbe ry, f o r the pur po se s o fthe I l l i noi s fel ony m urder sta tute, i t would notm att er whethe r Po l e ai m ed del ibe r at el y o r whethe r the g un acci dental l y di schar ged; i n ei thercas e, Pol e would be gu ilty of fi rs t d eg re e m u rd er . Se ePe opl ev. Figue r oa , 88 6 N
. E. 2d 45 5, 4 63 ( I l l

. App. 1 Di st
. 20 08 ) ( unde r the fel o ny m ur derdo ct r i ne , a fel o n i s r es po ns ibl e f o r the di r ec t an d f or es eeabl e co nsequences ofhi s a cti ons, r ega rdl ess o f whe the r the de fe nd a nti nt e nd e d t o k i l l the v i c t i m or w he th er the d eath w as acc id en tal); Pe opl ev. Pugh , 634 N
. E
. 2d 34, 35-36 (I ll

. A p p . 5 Dist. 199 4 ) (f e lon s areN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 43

re sponsibl e f ortho se deaths which o ccur du ri ng a felo n y a n d w h ich are fore se ea b le c on se q u en c es o f th eir i ni ti alc r i m i na l a ct s; i t i s imm at er i alwhethe r the k i l l i ng w as intenti onalo r acci dental o r w as com m i tte d by a c on federa te w i thout the c onni vance ofthe defe nd ant o r eve n by a thi rd party try i ng to pre vent the c om m i ssi on of or res ist th e felon y). P ole ’s c on fes sio n im p lica te d h im i n bo th th e ar m ed r o bb er y an d th e m ur der, and so the supp re ssi on m oti on co uld have affected b oth convi cti ons. Because Pol e a lso a l l ege s that the o therev i dence of his p articipation in th e crim e is su sp ect ( in p a rticular, th e ev i den ce fr o m Andr ea Ham i l to n, Kar enW i l l s and Ram on Ham i lton), we w i l l deferthe fi nal anal ysi s o f w hetherthe confess i on would have bee n supp re ss ed o r wh e th e r P o l e wo u l d h a v e b e e n a c q u i t t e d u n t i l we consi der hi s o thercl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce.

2. A s we have al re ady not ed, bo th the st ate appel l ate cou rt and the d istri ct cou r t m is read Ram on H am il ton ’s affi davi t. Each co urt ass um ed that Ra m on w as not p resen t at the shootin g and that his testim ony therefore c ou ld n oth av e in flu en c ed th e o u tc om e o f th e t ria l. Inh is affi davi t a nd ev en i n the sta te’ s v er si on o fthe f acts, R a mo n wa s p r e s e n ta tth e s h o o t i n g, a n d wa s the i nd i v i du a l wh o b r o ught the g un t o the e nc o un t e r . I nd e e d, Ra m o n was c ha r g ed wi tha nd pl ed g ui l tyt o m urde r a nd att em pted arm ed r obbe ry, the sam e char ges o n w hi ch Po l e wa s c onvi ct ed att r i al

. I n the c o ur se o fpl ea di ng gui l ty, Ram on a d m itte d to the pr ose cutor ’ s pro ffer ed44 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

A s previously note d, th is affidavit was s igned in 1998, m ore 8 t h a n fou r ye ars after th e m u rd er. Po le sub m itted R am o n ’s affi d av it to the Illino is ap p ell a t e c ou rt w ith h is pro sepe t i t i on f orpos t- convi c t i onr e l i e fi n Nove m be r 1 9 9 8 , a nd a l s o s ub

m itted it i n h is fed era l habe as p ro ceed ing s. f actualbas i s f orhi s pl ea. A ccor ding to that proffer, after Ram on was ar re ste d on the ni ght o fthe m urder, he r ec e i v e d M i r anda war ni ng s a nd , wi thhi s m o th erpr es en t ( because Ram on was fi ftee n yea rs ol d at the ti m e) , ga ve a sta tem ent i m pli cating h i m sel fand Pol e. A ccor ding to th ats ta te m en t, Po l e ca m e to Ra m o n th e e ve ni ngo fthe m urd er to ask fora gu n s o t h a t Pole cou ld go to the tire shop and rob the Gangste r D i sci ple s o fthei r j ew el ry . Ram on pro vi ded Pole with a l oaded handgun, and drove i n a s epa ra te c ar wh en the Bl acks tone s pass ed i n fro nt o f the t i re sho p to ver i fy that GangsterDis ci ple s were prese nt. A fterpark i ng the i r c ar s n ear the ti re sho p, Pol e a ske d Ram on t o re lea se the safetyo n the gun and Ram on o bl i g ed. The y a ppr o ac he d the s ho p a nd Po l e fi r ed o ne shotbefor e the two fl ed the scene. A fterbeing to l d that Po l e g av e the g un to Ra m o n’ s si st er, Ra m o n r et r i ev ed th e g un a nd hi d i t unt i l the po l i ce a r r i ve d a nd de m an ded th e w eapon. Ram on co nceded al l o fthi s a t hi s change o fpl ea hear i ng. I n h i s affi dav i t, Ra m o n t o l d a di ffer en t st o r y o fthe ni g ht ofthe murde r . R. 1 3, a t C63
. Acco r di ngt o the 8 aff id av it, R am on w as ath is h om e w ith T h om as Jr., L on tr ay , Ro b an d T h a d d e u s “ sm ok in g w ee d ” w h en P oleN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 45

N o last n am es h a v e b een offered b y Po le or b y an y of his 9 affi an ts f or an y of these ind iv id u als. A ccording to w w w . urban dicti onary.c om , a blunt i s a ci gar 10 thathas been holl ow ed ou t and refil le d w ith m arij uana. drove up. R. 13 , atC63, ¶3. Pol e t ol d the g ro up thata ri val

9 g an gmem be r, Co r eyLa m b, was a t th e ti r e sh o p. Tha ddeus sugge ste d that th e group proce ed to the ti re sho p to beat Lamb f o ra pa stwro ng . Afte r Rob b al k ed, Tha ddeus sugge ste d that the g ro up d ri ve past the ti re sho p to m ak e sur e th atPo l e was c o r r ec t ab o utthe i den ti tyo fthe m an h e saw ther e. They dr ove past the s hop, co nfi rm ed Po l e’ s cl ai m , a nd the n parked i n the a l l eyb eh i nd the sh o p. As the y wal k ed to war d the t i r e s ho p, Tha ddeus ask ed i fe v e r y o ne h a d h i s b a c k, a nd R a mono ffe r e d that he had a gun. Thadd eus then to ok the gun from Ram on and sai d he was go i ng to hi t Lam b with the gun. Ram on an d Lo nt r ayt o ld hi m t o putthe s afety o n o r t o t ak e th e c li p out t o preve nt an acci dental sho oting. W h ile Tha ddeus was tr y i ng to put th e sa fety o n, Ra m on and Lo nt r ayr ea ch ed f o r the g un a nd i t di sc ha r g ed to war d the van atthe ti re sho p. Ever yone r an, an d R am on r etur ned h om e a n d “fire d u p [h is] b lu n t.” T h ad d eu s a n d P ole 10 ca m e to Ra m o n’ s ho us e an d Ram o n a sk ed wher e th e gun w as. W hen Pol e t ol d him i t w as i n hi s ca r, Ram on to l d hi m t o r et r i ev e th e wea po n. P o l e l e ftt o g e tt h e g u n, a n d R a mo n p r o c e e d e d t o a “ g a me r o o m ” w ith Lo nt r ay, wher e he pl ay ed a few g ames a nd sm oke d m or e m ar ij uana. W hen Ram on r eturned hom e, hi s si st erAndr ea g av e hi m the g un a nd he hi d i t o n the46 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 si de ofhi s ho use. W hen t h e pol i ce a rr i ved and ask ed f or the gun, Ram on ( by hi s own acco unt) “pl ayed cr azy ” an d told th e officers h e d id n ot know w ha t the y w ere ta l k i ngabo ut
. Af te r the o ffi cers s ta r ting“ pul l i nga nd shak i ng ” hi m, he t ur ne d o v e r the g un . Th e o ffi c e r s t hen too k Ram on, hi s s i ste r and his m othe r to the pol i ce sta ti on f orquesti oni ng. The pol i ce ques ti oned Ram on w i th hi s m othe r prese nt, te l l i ng hi m thatPol e had na m ed hi m a s th e sh o o te r . W he n Ra m o n den i ed be i ng the s hoot er, the office rs to l d him thatthe onl y way f or h im t o go hom e was to si gn a sta tem ent i m pli cating Pol e as the s ho o te r . R amon r efus ed to s i g n the s ta te m en t unt i l hi s m o th erdi r ec te d hi m t o do s o . Co nt r ar y t o the offi cer ’ s pro m i se, Ram on was notr el eas ed, but w as pla ced i n custo dy at a j uven il e f aci l i ty. Ram on’ s l aw yerl ate r re com m ended that he accept a ple a d ealand tes ti fy a gai nst Po l e. Ra m o n’ s m o th ert o l d hi m t o t ak e th e dea l, a nd R am on p led gu il ty. R am on w a s nev er asked to testify aga i nst Po l e. R. 13 , atC63- 66. A ccor ding to Pol e, Ram on’ s t est i m ony, as por tr aye d i n h i s a ffi d a v i t, w o u l d h a v e e x o ne r a t e d h i m. P o l e c l a i ms th at h is law ye r’s failu re to inv es tig a t e R am on an d ca ll hi m t o the s t a nd c o ns t i t ut e d i ne ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e o f counsel

. Ram on, Pol e conte nd s, w as an eyewitnes s w hose te sti m ony coul d hav e sh own thatPol e was not the s h oo ter
. S i m i l ar l y, Lontr ay w as an ey ew i tness wh ose tes ti m ony coul d have e xoner ate d Pole ofthe charg e o f fi r stde g r ee murde r . Be ca us e th e di st r i ctc o ur t an d the sta te cour t m i sc on str ued the affi davi t, we w i l l r evi ew thi s cl ai m without the usual defer ence. W e fi rs t co nsi der wheth e r c o u n s e l ’ s f a i l u r e t o i n v e s t i g a t e R a mo n a ndN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 47

R am on’ s a ffid avit do es not m enti on Pole’ s att orney. R. 13, 11 at C63- C66. L on tr ay w as “o u ts id e t h e w i d e ra n ge of p ro fes sio n ally com petent ass i sta nce. ” St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at69 0. Ram on h ad sign ed a c on fes sio n on th e s a m e n igh t t h at P ole i m pl i cat ed hi m se l f, a nd Ra m o n’ s co nfes si o n s ubs ta nti al l y m atched the sta tem ents gi ven by hi s si ste r A n d re a and by herfri end K ar en W i l l s. Ram on als o ple d gui l ty to the m ur dera nd c o nc ede d the s ta te ’ s ve r si o n o fthe f acts athi s p lea al l ocuti on. That v er si on, o fco urse , na m ed Pole as the sh ooter. P ole ’s a rg u m en t o n t h is p oin t p re su m es first th at h is tr i alco unsel di d not invest i gat e Ram on H am i l ton or Lontra y. The r eco rd, however, does not tel l us whether counseli n f act had i nvest i gat ed th es e tw o eye w i tness es to the c ri m e pr i orto the t i m e o fthe tr i al

. Pol e di d not 11 obt ai n an affi dav it f ro m hi s t ri alco unsel, and nei ther the s tat e co urts northe dist ri ct cou rt h el d a hear i ng at whi c h the f a c t
- fi nd e r c o ul d h a v e di s c e r ne d whet her ther e was a f actual basi s f orPol e’ s cl ai m thatco unsel f ai l ed to i nvest i gat e these w i tness es. M or eov er, Pol e has su b m itt ed n o a ffid av it fro m L on t r a y s u p p or tin g h is cl aim thatLontr ay’ s t est i m ony w oul d exoner ate Pol e. On a ppea l, Po l e do es no t as kus t o r emand for a he ar i ng but ratherr equests thatwe si m plyr eve rs e the di str i ct co ur t’ s o r dera nd r emand wi thi ns tr uct i o ns t o i ss ue the w ri t. Giv en thati t was Pol e’ s burden to pro du ce e vi dence on this p oin t, and gi ven that Po l e has nei therpro du ced th at ev id en c e n or req u es te d a h ea rin g w h er e h e w o u ld48 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281

In the affidavits fil ed with the habe as pe t i t i on, both Ram on and 12 P o l e c o n c e d e th a tth e y w e n tto th e ti r e sh o p to “ b e a tC o r e y ’s (co n tin u ed ...) h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o v i d e th a t e v i d e n ce , we d ec l i ne to as sum e the tr uth ofas ser ti ons that l ack re cor d supp or t. P ole ’s a rg u m en t a lso p re su m es th at, ha d co u n se l inv es tigat ed R am on Ham i l ton, co unsel would have been abl e t o c on vin c e R am on to rec an t h is c o n f es sio n, w ith d ra w h is gu ilt y p le a (or at least recan t his plea h earing all ocu tion), and rev er se hi s intenti on t o coo perat e with the sta te i n P o l e’ s pr o se cut i o n. As f orLo nt r ay, Po l e’ s ar g um en t presum es that counselwould have been a b le to l oca te the e l us i v e Lo nt r a y ( who s e l a s t na me ha s y e t t o be pr ovi ded ) , and woul d hav e been abl e to get Lontra y t o co nfes s th ati t was he who w as ho l di ngthe g un a nd s t r ug g l i ngwi th hi s c o ho r t s wh e n the we a po n di s c ha r g e d. I n o the r wo r ds , c o un s e l wo ul d h a v e h a d t o p e r s ua de Lontra y t o confess to hi s par t in the shoo ti ng death of Bernar d J a c k s o n. I n the c a s e o fb o th Ra mona nd Lo nt r ay, nothi ng i n the re cor d supp or ts the wil d specula ti on that counsel w ou ld have b een abl e t o convi nce Ram on t o adm i t t o perj ury and Lontrayto te stify to the ver si on o f the f acts now prom ote d by Po l e a nd Ram on. N orm ay w e i gnor e the bi zar re natur e o fthe sto ry P ol e no w pro mot e s thr o ugh Ra m o n, tha tg a ngme mbe r s wh o c o nc e de they w er e o n thei r w ay to confro n t an d b eata ri val gang m em ber, st opped to a rgue abo ut how best to prot ect the t ar geto fthei r w ra th fr om an a cci dental sho oti ng . R e a s o nab l y c o mpe t e ntc o un s e l h a d e v e r y r eas on 12N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 49

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 a ss ,” in R a m o n ’s w o r d s, a n d t o “ w h i p C o r e y ’s a ss ,” in P o l e ’s w ords. They als o both conceded that afterR a m o n prod uced t h e g u n, Th ad d eu s ann ou nc ed he w as g oin g to u se the g u n to pist ol whip C orey, the ir gang rival. R. 13, at C51, ¶¶ 8, 14; R. 13, atC63 , ¶¶ 5 , 12
. Onl y the n di d t hese unus ual l y c ons c i en t i ous g an g m e m b e r s b eg in to arg u e ab ou t ho w b est to p istol w hip C o r e y w i th o u ta c t u a l l y s h o o t i n g h i m. n otto ca ll Ra m on to th e s ta n d . Ra m o n ’s g u ilty p lea , his confess i on a nd hi s al l ocuti on al l provi ded st ro ng ev i dence aga i nst Po l e. R am on’ s e ar l i erve rs i ons ofev ents poi nted to Po l e as the i ns ti g at o r f o r the e nt i r e co nfr o nt at i o n a nd a s th e u l t i ma t e t r i g g e r ma n . I n l i g h t o f th e g aps i n t he r ec o r d, Ram o n’ s co nfes si o n a nd g ui l typl ea, a nd the utter l ack of i nfo rm ati on re gar ding Lontra y, w e cannot sa y t h at co u n se l’s p os sib le f a i l u re to inv es tig at e o r c all th es e wi tn es se s fel l o ut si de th e wi de r an g e o fpr o fes si o nally co m p et en t a ss ist an c e. St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at69 0.

3. P ole ’s p rim ar y e vid en c e th at h is law ye r faile d to inv es tiga t e A n d re a a n d B on n ie H am ilto n an d K ar en W ills com es i n hi s thi rd affi davi t. R. 13 , atC61. There he s tat es th at, a fte r t al k i ngt o A ndr ea and Ka r enb efo r e th e tr i al, he as k e d h i s l a wy e r t o i nv e s t i g a t e the t wo . Hi s l a w yer re pli ed that a pri vat e inve sti gat orwould cos t about $250 , a pri ce Po l e a gr eed to pay. A ccor ding to the a ffi davi t, A nd re a t ol d Pol e be f or e t h e tri althatshe and her m othe r si g ne d s ta te m en ts i m pl i ca tinghi m o nl y b ec au se the50 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 pol i ce t ol d them theycould go hom e i ftheydi d so. A nd re a offer ed that i fPol e s ent hi s l aw yerto m eetthem , A nd re a an d he r mothe r woul d s i g n a ffi dav i ts e xpl aini ngwhy they si gned the or i gi nal st ate m en ts
. A nd re a l ate r re fused to talk furt he r to Pole, tell ing him sh e w as going to testify for th e s ta te . A c c or d i n g t o P ole , his law ye r als o t old hi m thati fA nd re a a n d K aren w er e wil l i ng to si gn affi davi ts changi ng the i r or i gi nal st or i es, theywould l i ke ly tes ti fy “ to the e xact s am e thi ng at tr i alo n the sta nd

. ” R. 13 , at C61, ¶ 4
. Pol e be l i eve d that And re a w as t ry i ng to pr o t e c th e r br othe r R a monwh e n s he wi thd r e w h e r s up portfro m Pol e. Pol e has notpro vi ded any affi d av it fro m Karen W i l l s, st at in g on ly in h is ow n a f fid av it t h at h e s p ok e t o W ills in M ay 1995 , and that W ills rel ate d to hi m that“s he di d not wa n t t o s i g n th e p a p e r b u t s h e j u s t w a n t e d t o g o h o me that ni ght, especi al l y si nce the p ol i ce knew she had sto l en so m e ha i r c ar e pr o duct s. S he fur th err el at ed th ats he m ea ntme no ha r m s he j us t si g ne d the pa pertha t sh e thi nks the S tat e’ s Attor ney ha d w ri tte n up.” R. 13, at C61, ¶¶ 1 -2. Yet Pol e has pre sente d no ev i dence thatKaren W i l l s ev er r ec an te d he r st at ement s f r o m th e ni g htof the m urder orherte sti m ony at tr ial, bo th o fwh i ch i m pli cate d Pol e a s the sho ote r. S he st at es ( thro ugh Pol e) th ats he di d no t wantt o s i g n the s ta te m ent a nd mean t no harm t o Pol e but does not ass er t that s he l i ed i n her i ni ti als ta te m en ts a nd t es tim ony. Not ab l y, ne i th erthe affi ants ( Pol e, Bonni e a nd A nd re a Ham i l ton) norKaren W i l l s s t a t e tha tP ol e’ s l a wy e r di d notco ntact them o r i nvest i gat e thei r sto ri es. N ordo a ny o fthem cl ai m thatN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 51

A nd rea Ham il ton com es cl oses t t o sayi ng that her original 13 s t at em en twas unt ru e. I n h eraffi davi t, s he al l eg es th at the prosecut or t old her t o te st ify thatPole brou ght a gun to her hous e and thatPol e t ol d he r he s hot s om ebo dy. The pr os ec ut or told her tha t she h ad to ch oo se b etw een her b r o t h e r an d Po le and “It ’ s only natu ra l I wou ld chose Ram on. ” She al so averr ed tha t she no w felt “re sp on sible for m y b ro the r R am on an d W illie [ Pol e] be i ng l oc ke d up f or s om ethi ng thatthey had nothi ng to do wi th. ” R. 1 3 , a t C7 2

- C7 3
. Th a t Po l e a nd Ra m onhad “no thi ng t o do with” the s hoo t i ng i s a c har ac t eriz at i on of eve nt s be lie d by the affi davi t s ofPol e and Ram on. Eac h n ow conce de s tha tthe y we ntt o the t i r e s ho p wi th a g unt o att ack a ri val gan g m em ber, an ac t i on that l ed t o the s hoo ting d eath ofan in n ocent by st and er. They als o both st ated i n thei r affidav i t s th a t R a m o n d i r e c t e d P o l e t o b r i n g th e g u n t o R a m o n ’s house, a nd tha tP ol e di d s o by g i vi ng the g unt o An drea w ith direct ions to bring ithom e f or Ram on. H er as se rt ion that the pr os ec ut or m anu f ac t ur ed h ersta tem en ti s c ur i ous i n l i ght o f he r b ro th er ’s co n ce ssi o n s. the s tat em ents they si gn ed on the ni ght o fthe m urder w er e untrue. Rather, they now ass er t that they sig n ed 13 the s t a t e men t s b e c a us e the y wa nt e d t o g o h o me, o r be caus e th eywant ed to pr o te ctthe m se l ve s o r Ra m o n. Each tes ti fi ed at tr i al consi ste ntl y w i th thei r or i gi nal s t a t e men t s . Bo nn i e Ha mi l t o n’ s a ffi da v i tdo e s nota dd m uch to the m i x. S he av er re d that the pro secuto r tol d her the o nl y way f orherand herchi l dren t o go h om e was f orRam on t o si gn a sta tem ent say in g that Po l e s hot at so m eo ne a nd f o r Andrea to si g n a s ta te m en t sa y i ng that Pol e g ave her the gun. A gai n, Pol e hi m sel fco ncedes ( a s do e s Ra mon Ha mi l t o n) tha t Po l e g a v e the g unto52 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 A nd re a a fterthe shoo ti ng . B onn i e Ham i l ton does not av er that the pros ecuto r w as ask i ng Ram on t o f al s el y cl ai m thatPol e s hot at som eone , o nl y that the pro secuto r as ke d R am on to sign a st at em en t t o t h a t e f fec t. B on n ie H am i l ton, like her daughter, now com pla i ns thatRam on i s “ l ock ed up fo r a m urder he di d not co m m i t, ” e ven thoug h Ram on pl ed gui l ty to m urder charg es and agr eed to the t ruth o fthe pros ecuto r’ s pro fferathi s pl ea al l ocuti on. R. 13 , atC78- C80. I f in fact Po l e’ s l awy erf ai l ed to i nv es ti g at e Andre a an d B on n ie H am ilto n a n d K a r en W ills, w e c an n otsa y on th is re c o r d t h at failu re ca u se d P ole an y p rej u d ice attria l. See St r i ck l and, 4 66 U .S. at 6 88 ; Wiggi ns , 53 9 U.S
. at52 1. A nd re a an d Bo nni e H ami l to n h av e bo thc o nc ede d tha t, a t th e ti m e o fthe ar re sts and tr i al, thei r pri m ar y c once rn was to p ro tectRam on Ham i l ton. Pol e’ s co unsel was abl e t o sh o w A n d r e a ’ s b i a s o n c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n a tt r i a l, g e t ti ng he r t o c o nc e de tha ts he l o v e d R a monand w oul d n o tdo anythi ng to hurt h im . Kare n W i l l s has notr ecante d to thi s day, and tes ti fi ed at tr i alco nsi ste ntl y with her o r ig in a l state m en t to the p oli ce on the n ight of the m urder. Pol e a ssum es that hi s l aw yerco uld have co nvi nced A nd re a t o tes ti fy in a m anner contr ar y t o her or i gi nal sta tem ent a nd co ntra ryto w h at she bel i eve d w as i n her bro ther Ram on’ s best i nter est
. H e al so speculat es that Kar enW i l l s woul d ha ve c ha nged hert es ti m o ny ha d s he been approached byPol e’ s l aw ye r. E ven i fPol e’ s l aw yer had m anage d ei th er o f t h es e h ighl y s pecula ti ve and unli kel y fea ts, Pol e would al so have to show a r easonab l e pr obab i l i ty that he would have bee n acqui tte d if th e jur y h ad be en p re se n te d w ith th is a d d i tio n al e vi-N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 53 d en c e. Strickl and, 466 U .S. at 6 94 ; Bynum , 56 0 F
. 3d at 685; Ric har ds on , 40 1 F. 3d at 803. I n l i ght of the s ubstanti alo ther ev i den ce a g ains t hi m , Po le has f ai l ed to make s ucha showing.

4. B efo r e addr es singthe po ss ibl e pr ej udi ce o fc o uns el’ s perf or m ance a s a wh ol e, we m ust a dd re ss th e di str i ct c o ur t ’ s h a nd l i ngo fP o l e’ s p r o semo t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r . We p re vio u sly h eld t h a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rterr on eo u sly tr e a t e d t he t i mel y mot i o n t o r e c o ns i de r as an unauthori zed att em pt to l i ti gat e a succes siv e col l ate ra l at ta c k on h is s en te n c e. Se ePol ev. Fi rkus , Case N os. 06

- 2768 & 0 6

- 3 2 8 1 , O r d e r, a t2 ( 7 thC i r . J a n . 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 )
. We concl ud ed that the c ourtsho uld have tr eat ed th e fi l i ng as a t i m el y m oti on f orr eco nsid erati on a nd sho uld have d ec ided i t on the m er i ts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59( e)
. I n h is m o ti o n t o r ec o ns i der, Po l e po i nt ed o uttha t bo ththe sta te ap pel l ate co urt and the di str i ct c ourtm i sr ead Ram on Ham i l ton’ s a ffi davi t. Pol e’ s o bse rvati on was cor re ct, and the d ist ri ct c ourtsho uld have decl i ned to defe r to the s tat e co urt’ s fi nd i ngs o n Ram on’ s a ffi davi t. W e h a v e n o t de fe r r e d t o the s t a t e c o ur t ’ s fi nd i ng s r e g a r ding Ra m on’s affi d av it, and i ns tead hav e resolved Pole’s cl ai m s usingthe ass um pti on that Ram on would have testi fi ed that he was pres ent a t the sho oting. Pol e a l so note d fo r the fi rs t tim e in the m oti on t o re consi der that the gunshot r esi du e t estr esul ts w oul d have s up port ed hi s mo t i o n t o s up pr e s s h i s c o nfe s s i o n a nd wo ul d hav e c o r r o b o r a t e d R a mo n ’ s ne w a c c o u n to fth e c r i me . As we54 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 expla i ned abov e, however, a rgum ents m ade f orthe fi rs t ti m e i n a m o ti o n to r ec o ns i der co m e to o l at e f o r the c ou rt ’s c on sid e r a tio n . M ung o, 35 5 F
. 3d at 978. A l though the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have deci ded Pol e’ s m oti on t o re consi der o n the m erits , we concl ud e that the er ro r d oe s n otaffe c t t h e o u tc om e o f th e a p p ea l.

C. Fi nal l y, we consi der whether Pol e wa s p rej ud i ced by an y d efi cienc ies i n h is coun sel’s p erform an ce , a n inq uiry w e m ake b y c onsi deri ng co unsel ’ s per f or m ance a s a w h ole

. Tho m ps on , 45 8 F
. 3d at 616 ( counsel ’ s per f or m ance m us t be a ddr es se d a s a whol e; it is o ve r al l de fi ci en t perf or m ance ra therthan a speci fi c f ai l i ng, that const i tutes th e g ro u n d o f relie f); P eop les , 403 F.3d at 848 ( sam e). W e a ss u m ed ab ov e t h at c ou n se l’s d ec isio n to rely en tirel y on th e state’s w itness es to estab li sh that Pole’s con fession ha d been coerced cons titute d de fi cient perform an ce . I n By num , the defe nd ant’ s co nfe ssi ons provi ded th e p rim ar y e vid en c e a ga in st h im
. Bynum , 560 F. 3d at 685. B ecau se th e only ot h e r eviden ce su p p orting B yn um ’s co nv i ct i o n c o ns i st ed o fa vo i ce i den ti fi ca ti o n by a thi r te en year - o l d b o y who ha d he ar d the de fen dan t spe ako n o ne othe r occa si on, w e re aso ned that Bynum would have been ac q u itt ed h ad th e t w o c on fes sio n s b ee n su p p re s se d . In P ole ’ s c as e, in ad d itio n to h is s ign ed co n fes sio n, Po le soughtto excl ud e o ra l s ta te m ents he m ade to two pol i ce offi cer s a nd an a ssi sta nt st ate ’ s a tto rney on the ni ght o f the m urder. These sta tem ents w ere al l co nsi ste nt with sta tem ents Pol e m ade thatsa m e e veni ng to A nd re aN os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 55 H am ilto n an d K ar en W ills, w h o a lso t es tifie d attria l. P ole w as also i d en tified by oth er pe rson s p resen t at the tir e sh o p tha t ev eni nga s th e per so n who ha d i nqui r ed ab o ut the g ang a ffi l i ati on o fthe othe r m en atthe shop, and as the pe r so n who l at erdr o ve pa stthe s ho p fl as hi ngg an g sy m bo l s. Hi s ca r was i den ti fi ed by w itne ss es , a nd the m urd er w eap on w as recove r e d f rom Ram on H am il ton ’s house, al ong w i th a gl ove m ar ked with Pol e’ s nam e. U nl i ke Bynum , th er e w as co n sid er ab le e vi d e n c e o f P ole ’s g u ilt beyo nd the al l ege dlyco er ced confess i ons to l aw enf or cem e n t offic er s a n d th e p ro se c u to r. W e c on c lu d e t h at P ole has f ai l ed to dem onst ra te a re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty that he would have bee n acqui tte d had the o ra l and w ri tte n c o nfe s s i o ns b e e n s up pr e s s e d. Altho ug h we ea r l i er as su m ed th at th e f ai l ur e to p ut Pol e o n the sta nd was outs i de the w id e range o fpro fessi onal l y c om petent ass i sta nce, we u ltim ate l y fi nd that Pol e has f ai l ed to d em onst ra te a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty th athe woul d ha ve pr ev ai l ed atthe s up p ress i o n h ea r i ng i f h e h a d t e s t i fi e d o n h i s o wn b e h a l f

. As wi th Bynum , the cour t f ound the o ffi cers an d assi sta nt st ate ’ s a tto rney te st ifyin g a ga i n s t P ole w er e c re d ible

. Bynum , 56 0 F
. 3d at 6 8 5
. An d a s wi th Bynum , we defe r to thi s co ncl usi on be ca us e i t was r ea ch ed afte r a he ar ing on the mer i ts a nd is s u p p o r t e d by th e re c or d

. Id

. Had Po l e te st i fi ed atthe s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g, h e wo u l d h a v e h a d o n l y h i s o wn uncorr obo ra ted te sti m ony ofco er ci on, w ith no physi cal evi dence and no o ther witnes ses . I n hi s s i gned co nfes si o n, Po l e s tated tha t he was t r ea te d wel l b y the po l i ce o ffi ce r s an d the a ss i st an t st at e’ s at to r ne y, tha t he w as gi ven wat er a n d so da to dri nk, thathe was al l owed56 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 ba th r o o m b r ea k s, tha t he was n o t pr o m i se d a ny th i ng in e x c hange f orhi s s tat em ent a nd thathe was notthr eat
ened i n any w ay. H e al so sta ted thathe was notunder the infl uence o fdrugs oral coho l at the ti m e he si gned th e co nfes si o n. W ei gh ed a g ains t hi s si g ne d s ta te m en t and the c re d ible tes ti m ony oftwo pol i ce o ffi cer s a nd an ass i sta nt st at e’s attorney, Pol e o ffer s o nl y hi s uncor ro bora te d te st im on y t h at h e w as ke p t a w ak e fo r ap p ro x im at ely te n h ou rs be for e h e c on f e s se d . W e c on c lu d e P ole has f ai l ed to dem onst ra te a r eas onab le p ro babi l i ty that h e w ou ld h av e p re va iled atth e s u p p re ss io n h ea rin g if he had testifi ed on his ow n be ha lf

. Vie w i ng co unsel ’s p erf or m ance a s a wh ol e, we note fi r sttha t Po l e’ s l awy erwas f ac ed wi tha c l i en t who co nfes se d t o no few er th an fi ve pe o pl e wi th i n h o ur s o fthe m urder, i ncl ud i ng t w o ac q uai ntances , two pol i ce o ffi c e r s a n d a n a s s i s t a n ts t a t e ’ s a tt o r n e y . B y h i s o wn adm i ssi on, Pol e ins tiga ted the enti re i nci dent and then per so na l l y t r i ed to hi de th e m ur derwea po n a fte r the shoo ti ng. The gun was f ound w ith a gl ove m ar ked with Pol e’ s nam e. A lthough Pol e cl ai m s no t t o have been to u c h in g t h e g u n, h e w a s th e p er so n w h o w as in po ss essi on o fthe gun afterthe shoo ti ng. The bas i s f or P ole ’s c laim th at th e s h oo tin g w as ac c i d e n ta l is a h igh ly su sp ect story: a group of d rug-ad d led gan g m em bers w ho were on thei r w ay to beata ri valga ng m em ber st o pped to a r g ue abo utho w to en g ag e th e sa fety o n the gu n so th at th ey w ou ld n otac c id en ta lly s h oo t t h eir ri val

. A nd wh i l e t ry i ng to p rotec t thei r tar get, they tu ss l ed o ve r the g un a nd a cc i den ta l ly sh o t ani nno ce nt byst an d er.N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 57 Despit e these f acts , Pol e’s law yersucce ssfull y a rgued f orthe cour t t o in st ru ct the j ury on the l ess ero ffense of i nvol untarym ansl aughter, and al so succes sfull y a rgued tha tthe r e we r e s uffi c i e ntmi t i gat i ng f a c t o r s t o p r e c l ud e i m posi ti on o fthe death penal ty. G iven the e vi dence agai n s t P ole, thes e w ere signifi can t victories. Th ere are certain ly th ings th at Pole’s law yer cou ld ha ve d one differen tl y a nd pe r ha ps m o r e effec ti ve l y. Th ati s no t th e st an d ard , how ever, for hab e as r e v i e w u n d e r t he AE DP A. “H abea s r el i efm ust no t be gr anted unl ess the sta te cour t’ s a dj ud i cati on o fthe cl ai m ( 1) r esul ted i n a d eci si on tha twa s c o nt ra ry to , o r i nv o l v e d a n un r e a s o nab l e a ppli cati on o f, cl ear l y est abl i shed Fe derall aw , as deter m i ned by the S up re m e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es; or (2 ) r esul ted in a de ci si o n tha t was b as ed o n a n un r ea so nabl e determ i nati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evi dence pres ented i n the St ate co urt proce edi ng. ” Jul i an , 49 5 F
. 3d at 492. Se eal s o Jac ks on , 3 48 F.3d a t 662 ; 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4( d)

. The sta te cour t’ s a dj ud i cati on o fPol e’s c lai m o fi neffecti ve as si st an ce o fc o uns eldo es no t m ee t th i s stan d ard. To d em ons trate p rej ud ic e from cou ns el’ s d efi cient perform a nc e , a “ de fe nd a nt mus t s ho w tha t the r e i s a re aso nab l e p r o b a b i l i t y tha t, b utf o r c o un s e l ’ s u np r o fe s s i onal er ro rs , the re sul t o fthe proce ed ing would have bee n d iffer en t. A rea so n ab le p ro b ab ility is a p ro b ab ility su ffici ent to und er m i ne confi dence in the outc om e. ” St r i ck l and, 466 U
. S. at69 4. A ny l aw yerwould have had difficulty persuad ing a j ury to buy the st or y that Po l e wanted to tel l, gi ven hi s m ult i ple co nfe ssi ons and his f ar fetche d ex pl an at i o n f o r the “ ac ci dent. ” Po l e ha s no t sh o wn a r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t th e r es ul t o fthe pr oceed i ng58 N os. 06

- 2768 & 06

- 3281 woul d ha ve b ee n di ffer en t e ve n i fhi s l awy erha d do ne e v e r y th i ng Po l e n o w a r g u e s h e s h o u l d h a v e d o n e . We ther ef or e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d en ial ofhi s peti ti on for a w rit of hab e as c orpus . A FFI RMED .

7- 7- 09