2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-30-2009 

# M aurice P rice v

. W ynde r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1659

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

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M auric e P ric e v

. W ynde r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 350. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/350NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 1659

____________ M A U R IC E M . P R IC E , A ppel l ant

v. JA M E S W . W Y N D E R ; D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y O F B E R K S C O U N T Y ; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF P A, A ppel l ee

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 00972) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober29, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F U E N T E S , a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober30, 2009 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . M aur i ce Pr i ce appeal s the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on for wr i to f h a b e a s c o rp u s . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B e c a u s e w e w ri te f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e re v ie w o n ly th e e s s e n tia l f a c ts . I n 2003, a s t at e courtj uryconvi ct ed Pr i ce of s ever al offe ns es ar i s i ng fr om the beat i ngs and r obberyof C hr i s M ar cano a nd hi s father . T he M ar canos w er e att acke d near thei rr es t aur anti n R eadi ng, Penns y l vani a byfourm en, tw o of w hom att empt ed t o dr ag C h ri s in to a w a itin g v e h ic le b e f o re m a k in g o f

f w ith a b a g c o n ta in in g c h e c k s a n d c u rr e n c y . A ttr i al , C hr i s i dent i fi ed tw o of the as s ai l ant s as Pr i ce a nd Paul Si m m ons . I n addi t i on, an in f o rm a n t n a m e d K e v in M a rt in te s tif ie d th a t P ri c e c o n f

e s s e d to th e c ri m e w h ile in ja il. C ontr aryt o t he t es t i m onyof C hr i s M ar cano a nd K evi n M art i n, Si m m ons and another w i tnes s t es t i fi ed thatPr i ce w as notpr es entw hen the bea t i ngs and r obberyoccurr ed. P ric e w a s re p re se n ted a t trial b yR ich a rd H a rris. A f ter P ric e w a s c o n v icte d , H a rris co m m itted a p roc ed u ral de fa u ltb yfa il ing to f il e a ti m elyC o n cise S tat em en t of M att ers C o m p lai n ed o f o n A p p ea l as req u ir ed b yP en n sy lvan ia R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 1925( b) . A ccor di ngl y , the Penns y l vani a Super i orC our taff i r m ed Pr i ce’ s convi ct i on. Pr i ce f i l ed a pro se habea s pet i t i on pur s uantt o Penns y l vani a’ s Post - C onvi ct i on R e lie f A c t, 4 2 P a . C .S . § 9 4 5 1 , et s eq . A tto rn e yR e b e c c a B e ll w a s s u b se q u e n tly appoi nt ed t o r epr es entPr i ce i n hi s s t at e habe as pr ocee di ngs and fi l ed an a m ended pe t i t i onT er i ca M art i n i s unr el at ed t o the j ai l hous e i nform ant , K evi n M art i n. 1 T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254( a) 2 and w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2253. 3 a l l e g i n g s i x g r o u n d s o f

i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e b yP r i c e ’ s tr i a l c o u n s e l ( Ha rr i s ) . Th e P CRA cou rtheld a heari ng atw hich Pri ce, H arr i s, and T eri ca M art i n— a po t enti al al i bi w i tness w h o m H arris el ec ted n o t t o ca ll at tri al— test ifi ed . T h e P C R A co u rtrejected P ri ce ’s 1 i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m s and di s m i s s ed hi s pet i t i on. Pr i ce appeal ed t o the Super i or C our t , addi ng tw o new gr ounds of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el , butw as u n su c c e ss f

u l. Pr i ce ne xtfi l ed a pr o s e habea s pet i t i on i n fede r al court , i n w hi ch he a l l eged e i ght gr ounds of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al and appe l l at e couns el . I n February2008, fi ve y ea rs af ter P ri ce w as c o n v ict ed , the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted a M ag istrate Ju d g e’s R ep o rt and R ecomm endat i on thatPr i ce’ s habea s pet i t i on s houl d be deni ed. Pr i ce appeal ed and w e gr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyon the fol l ow i ng tw o i s s ues : w hethertr i al couns el w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r (1 ) f a ili n g to c a ll p o ten tial a lib i w itn e ss T e ric a M a rtin , o r (2 ) f a ili n g to obj ectt o the i ncul pat oryt es t i m onyof j ai l hous e i nform antK evi n M art i n. 2 II. Pr i ce’ s appea l i s governed bythe def er ent i al s t andar ds of the A nt i - T err or i s m and E ff ec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct of 1 9 9 6 (A E D P A ). U nderA E D PA , a s t at e pr i s oner ’ s habea s pet i t i on m us tbe deni ed as t o any cl ai m that w as ‘ adjudi cat ed o n the m eri t s i n S t at e cou rtproceed i ng s’ un l ess the adj udi cat i on ‘ w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on4

of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ’ or‘ w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa cts i n li g h t of

the e v iden ce p rese n ted in the S tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing . ’” A bu -Jam al v. H

orn , 5 2 0 F . 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g 2 8 U. S . C. § § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ) an d (2)). “U n d er the ‘un rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n ’ pro n g o f § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ),

‘ the ques t i on . . . i s notw hethera fe der al courtbel i eves the s t at e court ’ s det erm i nat i on w as i ncorr ectbutw hetherthatdet erm i nat i on w as unr eas onabl e – a s ubs t ant i al l yhi gher thr es hol d. ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng Schr i r o v. Landri gan , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 3 3 , 1 9 3 9 (2 0 0 7 )) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a r e “ n o ta u th o r i z e d t o g r a n th a b e a s c o rp u s r e l i e f s i mp l yb e c a u s e we di s agr ee w i th the s t at e court ’ s deci s i on orbeca us e w e w oul d have r eac hed a di ffe r ent r es ul ti f l eftt o ourow n devi ces . ” W er t s v. V aughn , 2 2 8 F .3 d 1 7 8 , 1 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W e maygr anthabea s r el i ef t o a s t at e pr i s oneronl yi f “the s t at e courtdeci s i on, eval uat ed obj ect i vel yand on the mer i t s , r es ul t ed i n an out come t hatcannotr eas onabl ybe j us t i fi ed underexi s t i ng Supr eme C our tpr ece dent . ” I d. ( quot i ng M

a t t e o v . Su

p e r i n t e n d e n t

, S CI A l bi on , 1 7 1 F . 3 d 8 7 7 , 8 9 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 )). Pr i ce a r gues thatthe PC R A court ’ s rul i ng cons t i tut es an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , and i t s pr ogeny . T o es t abl i s h thathe h as b ee n d en ied e ff

ec ti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel, P ri ce m u st sho w that H arris “m ad e e rrors so se rio u s th a t h e w a s n o t f u n c tio n in g a s th e ‘c o u n se l’ g u a ra n tee d b yth e S ix th A m endment . ” I

d. at687. Pr i ce f

ace s an uphi l l batt l e bec aus e “[ j ] udi ci al s crut i nyof5

couns el ’ s per form ance m us tbe hi ghl ydefe r ent i al . ” I d. at 68 9 . A s the S u p rem e C o u rt expl ai ned i n Str i ckland : I ti s al l t oo t empt i ng fora def endantt o s econd- gues s couns el ’ s as s i s t ance a f ter c o n v ictio n o r a d v e rse se n ten c e , an d it i s a ll t o o e a syf o r a c o u rt, exami ni ng couns el ’ s defe ns e af t eri thas pr oved uns ucce s s ful , t o concl ude th a t a p a rticu lar a c t o r o m iss io n o f c o u n se l w a s u n re a so n a b le. A f a ir a ss e ss m e n t o f

a tto rn e yp e rf

o rm a n c e re q u ire s th a t ev e rye f f o rt b e m a d e to el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng eff ect s of hi nds i ght , t o r econs tructthe ci r cumst ance s of couns el ’ s chal l enged c onduct , and t o eval uat e the conduc t fr om couns el ’ s per s pect i ve atthe t i m e. B eca us e of the di ffi cul t i es i nher ent i n m aki ng the eva l uat i on, a courtm us ti ndul ge a s tr ong pr es um pt i on that couns el ’ s conductfal l s w i thi n the w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance ; thati s , the def endantm us tover come t he pr es um pt i on that , under the ci r cumst ance s , the cha l l enged a ct i on m i ghtbe cons i der ed s ound tr i al s tr a t e g y. I d. (i n terna l ci tat ion an d q u o tat ion o m itted). T he ques t i on i n thi s appea l i s w hetherthe ac t s orom i s s i ons i dent i fi ed byPr i ce “w er e out s i de the w i de r ange of pr ofes s i onal l ycompet entas s i s t ance . ” I d. a t 6 9 0 .

“ [ S ]tra teg ic c h o ice s m a d e a f ter th o ro u g h in v e stig a tio n o f law a n d f

a c ts re lev a n t to pl aus i bl e opt i ons ar e vi r tual l yunchal l engea bl e; and s tr at egi c choi ces m ade a ft erl es s t han compl et e i nves t i gat i on ar e r eas onabl e pr eci s el yt o the ext entthatr eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent s s uppor tthe l i m i t at i ons on i nves t i gat i on. ” I d. at690- 91. O urconce rn i s not w h e th e r c o u n se l s hould have f o llo w e d a p a rticu lar c o u rse o f a c tio n su g g e ste d in h in d s ig h t, b u t “ w h e th e r t h e in v e s tig a tio n s u p p o rt in g c o u n s e l’ s d e c is io n . . . w a s itse lf re a so n a b le . ” W

ig g in s v . Sm ith , 5 3 9 U .S . 5 1 0 , 5 2 3 (2 0 0 3 ) ( e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . “R eas onabl enes s i n thi s cont exti s as s es s ed byl ooki ng t o ‘ [p] r evai l i ng nor m s of pr act i ce6

as r efl ect ed i n [the] A m er i can BarA s s oci at i on s t andar ds , ’ ” O ut t en v. Kear ney , 464 F. 3d 401, 417 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U . S . at 68 8 ), “a p p ly ing a h ea v ym ea su re of def er ence t o couns el ’ s j udgm ent s , ” Str i ckland, 466 U . S. at691. M or eover , “[t ] he r eas onabl enes s of couns el ’ s act i ons m aybe det erm i ned ors ubs t ant i al l yi nfl uence d byt he defe ndant ’ s ow n s t at ement s oract i ons . ” I d. A. W i th the af

or ement i oned s t andar ds i n m i nd, w e fi r s tcons i derH arr i s ’ s deci s i on not t o cal l T er i ca M art i n— the mot herof Pr i ce’ s chi l dr en and hi s gi r l fr i end atthe t i m e— as an al i bi w i tnes s . H arr i s t ol d the PC R A courtthatT er i ca w as w i l l i ng t o t es t i fythatPr i ce w as a t h o m e w ith h e r w h e n th e M a rc a n o s w e re a ttac k e d . H o w e v e r, “[ a ]f ter m e e tin g w ith M i s s M art i n, [H arr i s ] det erm i ned that. . . the al i bi i nform at i on s he w oul d have pr ovi ded w as notr el i abl e. ” A pp. 290. H arr i s expl ai ned thatPr i ce’ s defe ns e w as thathe di d not part i ci pat e i n t he cr i m e, notthathe w as notpr es entatthe s cene , and thati n l i ghtof T er i ca’ s l ack of

cr edi bi l i ty“ther e w as n’ tanys uffi ci entorcorr obor at i ve evi dence of w h e re [ P ri c e ] w a s , w h a t h e w a s d o in g , a n d w h o h e w a s d o in g it w ith .” A p p . 2 9 1 . A ccor di ng t o H arr i s , hi s typi cal pr act i ce w as nott o “ca l l al i bi w i tnes s es unl es s theyhave so m ethin g co rrob o rati v e, m ea n ing so m ethin g ind ep en d en t t o d em o n str ate tha t th eyw ere w ith that p erso n , an d [P ri ce ] ha d n o thing ” to c o rrob o rate T erica’s a li b i. A p p . 1 4 4 . “It w as n’ tm ytr i al s tr at egy , ” H arr i s t es t i fi ed, “t o puton a w i tnes s . . . thatI thoughtw as not r el i abl e and [ w ho] w oul dn’ thave he l ped [Pr i ce’ s ] cas e. ” I d.7

T he PC R A courtfound thatH arr i s w as noti neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o cal l T er i ca beca us e hi s “t es t i m ony[w as ] cr edi bl e i n thathi s deci s i on . . . w as partof a va l i d tr i al stra teg y .” A p p . 1 4 4 . T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d “ n o b a sis f

o r a f in d in g th a t th e sta te court ’ s anal y s i s w as an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw and . . . agr ee[ d] . . . t hat Str i ckland

compel s a fi ndi ng thatcouns el ’ s deci s i on di d notr i s e t o the l evel of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance . ” A pp. 5. T he essence o f P ri ce’s argum ent on t his i ssue i s as fol l ow s: T h e f a c tu a l f in d in g s o f

th e s ta te c o u rt a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt w e re w ro n g . T er i ca M art i n’ s al i bi t es t i m onyw oul d have c orr obor at ed the tr i al t es t i m ony of tw o ey ew i tnes s es w ho t es t i fi ed thatthe appe l l antw as notpr es entw hen the as s aul tt ook pl ace . T hi s i s cl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatthe fac tual fi ndi ngs of both s t at e tr i al and appe l l at e court s ar e i ncorr ectpur s uant to 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1). Pr i ce Br. 32- 33. P r i c e d o e s n o te x p l a i n wh i c h f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s we r e wr o n g . To th e e x t e n th e c l a i ms thatthe s t at e courterr ed i n hol di ng thatT er i ca M art i n’ s t es t i m onyw oul d have be en unhel pful , Pr i ce ha s fai l ed t o i dent i fythe pr operfac tual fi ndi ng. T he s t at e courtfound, as a m a tter o f

f a c t, th a t H a rris te stif

ied c re d ib lyth a t h is d e c isio n n o t to c a ll T e ric a M a rtin w as partof a va l i d tr i al s tr at egy . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthi s w as not“an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed” unde r A E D P A ’s de fe ren ti al st an d ard o f re v iew . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(2 ). W ith re s p e c t to th e P C R A c o u rt ’s a p p lic a tio n o f f e d e ra l la w , Str i ckland

m andat es d e f e re n c e to tac tica l d e c isio n s m a d e b ytrial a tto rn e y s a n d A E D P A m a n d a tes d e f e re n c e to8

s t at e courtdeci s i ons i nt erpr et i ng Str i ckland . It w a s re a so n a b le f o r th e P C R A c o u rt to c o n c lu d e th a t Str i ckland a f f o rd s c o u n se l d isc re tio n to m a k e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons aboutpot ent i al w i tnes s es notw i ths t andi ng the fa ctthatthei rt es t i m ony m igh t be h elpf

u l i n ce rt ain re sp ec ts. P ri ce cit es n o “c learlyestab li sh ed ” S u p rem e C o u rt pr ece dent( oranypr ece dentforthatm att er ) t o s ugges totherw i s e. B. W e n e x t tu rn to H a rris’ s f a ilu re to o b

jec t to K e v in M a rtin ’s te stim o n yth a t, w h ile in c a rc e ra ted a w a iti n g trial, P ric e c o n f e ss e d to “ p isto l w h ip p [ in g ] C h ris M a rc a n o a n d h is p o p .” A p p . 2 0 3 . K e v in M a rtin a lso tes tifie d th a t P ric e ’s c o -D e f e n d a n t S im m o n s to ld h im th e in c id e n t “w a s s u p p o se d to b e sim p lya ro b b e ry , jus t tu rn e d o u t to b e m o re th a n w h a t it w as s uppos ed t o be. ” I d. O n cro ss-ex am ination H arris at tack ed K ev in M arti n ’s cr edi bi l i tybyemphasi zi ng hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d and s ugges t i ng thathi s t es t i m onyw as m ot i vat ed bythe pr om i s e of a l eni ents ent ence . A pp. 204- 05. Pr i ce c l ai m s that“couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e a w i tnes s w ho w as a ca r eer cr i m i nal convi ct ed of f

eder al offe ns es and aw ai t i ng s ent ence di d notm eets t andar ds of

‘ r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent . ’ ” Pr i ce Br. at38. T hi s pr ovi des l i t t l e gui dance , but g iv e n se v e ra l p a ss in g re f e re n c e s to K e v in M a rtin a s a “ jailh o u se in f

o rm a n t” a n d to H arr i s ’ s “fa i l ur e t o obj ect ” t o hi s t es t i m ony , w e cons true Pr i ce’ s ar gum entt o be that K evi n M art i n’ s t es t i m onyw as excl udabl e bec aus e he w as act i ng as a G overnm entagent“[T] he Si xth A m endmenti s vi ol at ed w hen the St at e obt ai ns i ncr i m i nat i ng 3 s t at ement s byknow i ngl yci r cumvent i ng the ac cus ed’ s r i ghtt o have c ouns el pr es enti n a confr ont at i on betw een the ac cus ed and a s t at e age nt . ” Moul t on , 4 7 4 U .S . a t 1 7 6 . A l though Pr i ce doe s notm ent i on Moul t on , M as s i ah , o r th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t o n a p p e a l, th e P C R A c o u rt a n a ly z e d P ric e ’s c laim u n d e r th is f ra m e w o rk a n d it i s th e o n lyp lau sib le b a s i s w e c a n s u r m i s e f

o rs u p p r e s s i n g K e v i n M a r t i n ’ s t e s t i m o n y.

9 in v io la tio n o f

P ri c e ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l. See M ai ne v. Moul t on , 474 U .S . 1 5 9 (1 9 8 5 ); Mas s i ah v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 7 7 U . S . 2 0 1 (19 6 4 ). 3 T he reasonab l eness of H arr i s’ s deci si on no tt o seek to exclude K evin M art i n’s te s tim o n ytu rn s o n w h a t H a rr is k n e w a t th e tim e . See Str i ckland , 466 U . S. at689. T he r ecor d i s s om ew hatambi guous on t hi s poi nt . A tthe PC R A hear i ng, Pr i ce t es t i fi ed that hi s onl ycont actw i th K evi n M art i n w as i n N ovember2002 w hen M art i n appr oache d Pr i ce i n j ai l cl ai m i ng thathe w as s entbya U ni t ed St at es A t t orney . Pr i ce pr oduced a l ett er dat ed N ovember7 i n w hi ch he i nform ed H arr i s thathe had be en s ol i ci t ed fori nform at i on abouthi s cas e bya fe der al i nform ant . T he l ett erdi d noti dent i fyK evi n M art i n byname, how ever . Pr i ce f

ur thert es t i fi ed thatH arr i s t ol d hi m s hor t l ybefor e tr i al i n J anuary2003 thatK evi n M art i n’ s name w as on t he w i tnes s l i s t , and thatPr i ce r es ponded: “That ’ s t he s ame guythatI w r ot e y ou and t ol d y ou about . ” A pp. 273. H arr i s t es t i fi ed thathe di d notr emem berr ece i vi ng the N ovember7 l ett er , butt hat ats om e poi ntbefor e the tr i al Pr i ce i nform ed hi m K evi n M art i n w as cooper at i ng w i th t he G overnm ent . H ow ever , H arr i s cl ai m s he had no r eas on t o s us pectthatK evi n M art i n w as act i ng on G overnm entor der s t o el i ci ti nform at i on fr om Pr i ce i n a mannerci r cumvent i ng Pr i ce’ s r i ghtt o couns el . I n fac t , K evi n M art i n’ s tr i al t es t i m onys eems t o s ugges tthathe10

w a s s o l i c i t e d b y t h e G o v e r n m e n to n l y af t erP ri c e ’s p u rp o rt e d c o n f e s s io n . See A pp. 206 E ven more s i gni fi cant l y , H arr i s t es t i fi ed thatw hen he i nform ed Pr i ce s hor t l ybefor e tr i al that K ev in w as o n the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s w itn ess list , P ri ce resp o n d ed that “h e h ad n ’t sp o k e n to [ K e v in ] a n d th a t an yth in g th a t [ K e v in ] w o u ld h a v e b e e n sa y in g a s it re late s to hi s t es t i m onyw oul d have be en a l i e. ” A pp. 286. H arr i s expl ai ned thathe di d notfi l e a mot i on t o s uppr es s K evi n’ s t es t i m ony beca us e he “ di dn’ thave e nough i nform at i on t o deem t hatm ot i on t o be appr opr i at e. ” A pp. 288. Speci fi cal l y , “the C om m onw eal th had notpr ovi ded [H arr i s ] w i th i nform at i on r egar di ng [K evi n] bei ng a fe der al i nform ant . ” I d. “I f the C om m onw eal th had [s uch] inf o rm ati o n , ce rt ainlythat w o u ld h av e b ee n inf o rm ati o n u n d er B r ady thats houl d have b e e n tu rn e d o v e r.” A p p . 2 8 9 . “If th e yh a d th a t in f

o rm a tio n in th e ir p o ss e ss io n ,” H a rris t ol d the PC R A court , “I w oul d pr es um e theyw oul d have turned [i t ] over . ” I d. F u r th e r mo r e , Ha r r i s “ h a d a d i s c u s s i o n wi th th e p r o s e c u t o r. . . a n d h e d i d n o ti n f o r m me that. . . [K evi n] w as . . . w hatthe l aw w oul d cons i dera fe der al i nform ant[under Mas s i ah ] . ” I

d. T he PC R A courtfound that“H arr i s ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e anym ot i ons [w as ] partof a v a lid trial s tra teg y .” A p p . 1 5 1 . A lth o u g h th e d e c isio n w h e th e r o r n o t to f ile a m o tio n to su p p ress e v iden ce m ayb e strateg ic i n so m e c ase s, the q u esti o n h ere is w h ethe r H arris’ s d e c is io n in th is re g a rd w a s m a d e f o llo w in g re a s o n a b le in v e s tig a tio n . 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0 -9 1 . See a l so W iggi ns , 539 U . S. at523.11

W e fi r s tnot e thatthe r ecor d does notcl ear l yi ndi cat e w hatH arr i s knew orw hen he k n e w i t . I f

H a r r i s w a s i n f

o r m e d th a tK e v i n a p p r o a c h e d P r i c e c l a i m i n g t o b e “ s e n tb y” pr os ecut or s , “pr evai l i ng nor m s of pr act i ce” w oul d di ct at e a mor e ext ens i ve i nves t i gat i on in to a p o ten tial Mas s i ah vi ol at i on than i f H arr i s w as m er el yaw ar e thatK evi n w as c o o p e ra tin g g e n e ra lly w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. See Str i ckland , 46 6 U . S . at68 8. B ecause the t es t i m onyadduce d atthe PC R A hear i ng w as equi vocal on thi s poi nt , w e ca nnots ay th a t itw a s u n re a so n a b le u n d e r § 2 2 5 4 (d )(2 ) f o r th e P C R A c o u rt to c o n c lu d e th a t H a rris had no fi r m bas i s t o bel i eve a Mas s i ah vi ol at i on had occ urr ed. T her efor e, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt p ro p e rlyre

jec ted P ric e ’s in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim w ith re sp e c t to K e v in M a r t i n ’ s t e s t i m o n y. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.