2010 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
3-3-2010 

# Re al v . S h annon P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4532

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Re al v . S h a nnon" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1592. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1592P 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. 07- 4532

____________ TOR REY B. REA L,

A ppel l ant

v. SUPERI NTEN DEN T SHA NN ON ; THE A TTOR NEY G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ;

F I RS T DE P UTY P ROS ECUT OR YO RK CO UN TY D I STRI CT A TTOR NEY

____________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. N o. 07- cv- 00733) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R i char d P. C onaboy

____________ A r gued J anuary25, 2010H onor abl e Paul S. D iam o n d , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * J udge fort he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 2 B efor e: FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and

D I A M O N D , D i s t r i ctJ udge.

* ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 3, 2010) Di a n a S t a v r o u l a k i s , E s q . [ AR GUE D] 2 6 2 E lm C o u rt Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15237 C ouns el forA ppel l ant J e f f r e yF
. Bo y l e s , E s q . [ AR GUE D] D avi d J

. M ai s ch, E s q. O f f ice o f D istric t A tto rn e yo f

Y o rk C o u n ty 45 N or t h G eor ge St r eet Y or k C ount yJ udi ci al C ent er Y or k, PA 17401 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ D I A M O N D , D i s t r i ctJ udge.3 T or r eyR eal appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of h i s p e t i t i o n f

o ra w r i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4
. We g ran ted a ce rt ifi ca te of

ap p ea labili tyto co n side r w h ethe r R ea l’ s t r i a l c o u n s e l wa s i n e f

f e c t i v e . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a t f o l l o w, we a f f ir m . I. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4
. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1
. II. O n Fe b ru a r y4 , 1 9 9 9 , t h e Commo n wea l t h of Penns y l vani a cha r ged A ppel l antw i t h r ape, s t atut o rys exual assa u lt , ag g rav ated ind ec en t as sau lt , an d co rrup ti o n o f a m ino r, all eg ing that R ea l at tack ed a tw elve -y ea r-old g ir l i n Jan u ary 1999. O n M ar ch 18, 1999, R eal w as al s o char ged w i t h r ape a nd corrupt i on of a mi norforat t acki ng a fi ft een- y ear - ol d gi r l “on or ab o u t D ec em b er 1 9 9 6
. ” T h e v ict im s in the se p rose cu ti o n s w ere s t eps i s t er s . T h e t w o cas es w er e cons ol i dat ed, and tr i al w as s chedul ed forM ay2000 i n t he Y or k C ount y C o m m o n Pl eas C o u rt
. I n a l et t erdat ed D ece m ber23, 1999, R eal ’ s t r i al couns el not i fi ed t he pr os ecut or and t he cour t t hat he i nt ended t o pr es ent m i l i t aryr ecor ds t o es t abl i s h an al i bi for R eal w i t h r es pect t o t he 1996 r ape. See Pa. R
. C r i m . P. 567 ( “A defe ndantw ho i nt ends t o offe r t h e d e f

e n s e o f a l i b i a tt r i a l s h a l l f

i l e wi t h t h e c l e r k of cour t s . . . a not i ce s peci fy i ng an i n tent i on t o offe ran al i bi defe ns e, and shal l s er ve a copyof the not i ce . . . on t he att or ney f o r t h e C o m m o n w e a lth .” ).4 A tt r i al , t he 1996 vi ct i m ( “B

. B
. ”) t es t i fi ed thatal t hough s he w as n o t c er t ai n, s he bel i eved thatR eal as s aul t ed her so m e tim e b e tw e e n N o v e m b e r a n d D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 . C o u n se l d id n o t o b jec t to th is te stim o n y , ev e n th o u g h it w a s a rg u a b ly i ncons i s t entw i t h t he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on char gi ng R eal , w hi ch s ta te d th a t th e a tta c k o c c u rr e d “ o n o r a b o u t D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 .” Ra t h e r , d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l s o u g h tt o e s t a b l i s h t h a t : ( 1 ) b o t h v i c t i ms had col l uded t o m ake f al s e cha r ges agai ns tR ea l; and ( 2) R eal had an al i bi – m i l i t ary s ervi ce – for m os t of N o v em b er and D ecem ber 199 6. A ccordi ng l y , cou nsel vigorousl ycross exam ined B

. B
. , s ugges t i ng t hatheri nabi l i t yt o r emem bert he dat e of the as s aul tw as notcr edi bl e. C ouns el al s o pr es ent ed r ecor ds s how i ng t hatR eal tr avel ed t o Sout h C ar ol i na on N ovember 18, 1996 t o beg i n U
. S. A r m ys ervi ce a nd di d not r e tu r n t o Yo r k u n t i l F e b ru a r y1 9 9 7
. Re a l t e s t i f i e d t o t h e s e s a me f a c ts
. I n theircl os i ngs , t he pr os ecut orand def ens e couns el s ou g h t to c har act er i ze the evi dence t o t hei radvant age. T he pr os ecut or ar gued t hat i n l i ghtof B

. B
. ’ s t es t i m onyt hatt he r ape m i ghthave oc curr ed i n N ovember , R eal ’ s al i bi defe ns e – w hi ch cover ed the per i od begi nni ng N ovember18t h – w as i ncompl et e. De f e n s e c o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t Re a l c o u l d n o t h a v e a t t a c k e d B. B. b e c a u se h e w a s p e rf

o rm in g m ili tar y se rv ice

. C o u n se l a lso to ld th a t ju ry th a t B .B
. w a s n o t c re d ib le, es p e c ially b e c a u se sh e c o u ld n o t r e c a ll th e d a te a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e a tta c k

. T he tr i al cour tl at erchar ged the j ur yt hat i n reg ar ds t o [B

. B
. ] , hert es t i m onyw as s he bel i eved [ t he r ape] occurr ed dur i ng t he per i od N ovember , D ece m ber1996, al t hough s he w as not5 c e rta in o f

th e e x a c t d a te a n d , o f c o u rse , tha t w h o le i s s ue as t o w hen i t occurr ed, i f y ou det erm i ne that i t di d occur , and the al i bi defe ns e. A l l of thaty ou w ill h a v e to re c o n c ile a n d m e a s u re .
B utt he poi nther e i s t haty ou ar e not bound byany par t i cular o rs peci fi c dat e. I ti s notan es s ent i al el ement of t he cr i m e orcr i m es char ged. Y ou m ay fi nd t h e Def

e n d a n tg u i l t yi f

y o u a r e s a t i s f

i ed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hathe comm i t t ed the cr i m e cha r ged eve n t hough y ou ’ r e n o ts at i s fi ed that he comm i t t ed i ton a p art i cul ardayoratt he part i culart i m e al l eged i n the chargi ng do cum ents
. (A pp . at87
. ) T ri al cou nsel did not obj ectt o these i nst ruct i on s. O n M a y1 0 , 2 0 0 0 , the ju ryre tu rn e d a g u iltyv e rd ict o n a ll butone cha r ge: corrupt i on of a mi nori n connec t i on w i t h t he 1 9 9 6 a ttac k . O n Ju n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 0 , the trial c o u rt se n ten c e d R e a l to an aggr egat e t erm of t en t o t w entyy ears impr i s onm ent
. T he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e r io r C o u rt a f f irm e d , an d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our tdeni ed al l ocat ur . S e e C o m m o n w e a lth v . R e a l, 7 9 2 A .2 d 1 2 8 6 (P a . S u p e r. 2 0 0 1 ), appeal deni ed , 831 A

. 2d 599 (P a . 2 0 0 3 ). O n N o v e m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , R e a l f i l e d a t i m e l y pro se pet i t i on i n s t at e courtundert he Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct
. 42 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 9 5 4 1 . T h e P C R A C o u rt su b se q u e n tly a p p o in te d c o u n s e l, w h o c o n te n d e d , in tera lia , t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ectt o: ( 1) B
. B
. ’ s t es t i m onyt hat s he w as r aped i n N ovember or D ece m ber 1996, even though t he6 i nfor m at i on s t at ed t hatt he r ape oc curr ed “on oraboutD ece m ber 1996”; and ( 2) t he tr i al cour t ’s al i bi i ns t ruct i on. Fol l ow i ng an evi de n t i a r yh e a r i n g , t h e PCRA C o u r td e n i e d r e l i e f o n J u n e 6, 2 0 0 5 , a n d R e a l a p p e a le d to th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt
. O n appea l , R eal r ei t er at ed hi s cont ent i on t hatt r i al couns el i neff

ect i vel yfai l ed t o r ai s e the purpor t ed var i ance betw een the c ri m inal inf o rm ati o n an d B
. B
. ’s t esti m o n y . R el y i ng on C om m onw eal t h v. D evl i n, t he Super i or C our taff i r m ed. 333 A

. 2d 88 8 ( P a . 1 9 7 5 )

. I n De v l i n , t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C o u rt h e ld th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth is re q u ire d to p ro v e th e d a te o n w h ich a c rim e w a s c o m m itt e d o n lyto a “ re a so n a b le cert ai n ty , ” even w hen the def endantpr es ent s an al i bi defe ns e. I d. at891. T h e D ev l i n C our tdi d notcr eat e a s i ngl e t es tfor det erm i ni ng w hen a va r i ance as t o t he dat e of the cha r ged offe ns e m i ghtbe i m per m i s s i bl e, not i ng i ns t ead that“[a ] ny l eew ayperm i s s i bl e [must ] varyw i t h t he natur e of the cr i m e and th e a g e a n d c o n d iti o n o f th e v ictim , b a lan c e d a g a in st th e rig h ts o f t h e a c c u s e d

. ” I d

. a t8 9 2
. App l y i n g t h i s t e s tt o Re a l ’ s c a s e, t he Super i o r C o u r tbal ance d t he s er i ous natur e of the cr i m es char ged, B
. B
. ’ s age, and t he t i m e t hat had pas s ed betw een the at t ack an d B

. B
. ’s t est i m on yagainstR eal ’s d u e process r i gh t s, concl udi ng t hat“the var i ance betw een the al l egat i ons i n t he cr i m i nal i nform ati on and the pr oof adduc ed dur i ng t r i al w as r eas onab le .

. . . ” ( A pp. at38. ) A ccor di ngl y , t he C our trul ed t hatt r i al couns el w as not inef fe ct i ve forfai l i ng t o r ai s e a m e ri tle s s v a ri a n c e o b

je c tio n to B .B .’s te s tim o n y . T he C our ts i m i l ar l yr ej ect ed R eal ’ s cont ent i ons resp ec ti n g tr ial co u n sel’s fa il u re to o b jec t t o the tri al co u rt ’s i nst ruct i on s:7 T h e re co rd su p p o rt s the P C R A co u rt’s det erm i nat i on t hatt he t r i al cour tpr oper l yadvi s ed t he j ur yt o cons i der [R ea l’ s ] al i bi defe ns e al ong w i t h al l of the otherevi dence i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he C om m onw eal t h s at i s fi ed i t s bur den of p ro v in g b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t [ R e a l] comm i t t ed t he offe ns es char ged. T hus , w hen r ead i n i t s e n t i r e t y, t h e c o u r t ’ s j u r y i n s t ru c t i o n c l e a r l y, a d e q u a t e l y , a n d a c c u r a t e l yr e f l e c t e d t h e l a w. As s uch, [R eal ’ s ] i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el c laim lac k s a rg u a b le m e rit. ( I d. at39- 40. ) R ej ect i ng R eal ’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s on A pr i l 19, 2 0 0 6 , th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt a f f ir m e d th e d e n ia l o f

P C R A re lie f

. O n A pr i l 20, 2007, R eal , agai n ac ti n g pro se , s ought habea s corpus r el i ef i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t , al l egi ng t hathi s t r i al c o u n se l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to : (1 ) se e k a se v e ra n c e w ith r es pect t o t he 1996 and 1999 at t acks ; ( 2) obj ectt o t he purpor t ed var i ance betw een B. B. ’ s t e s t i mon ya n d th e c r i m i nal i nfor m at i on; a n d (3 ) o b

je c t to th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju ry in s tru c tio n . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254. O n O ct ober29, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed r el i ef, co n clud ing that the S u p erior C o u rt ’s ad jud icati o n o f R ea l’ s cl ai m s di d not“r es ul t [] i n a d ec isi on t hatw as contr aryt o, or i nvol ve[] an unr eas onabl e ap p li cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed F ederal la w . ” 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2 25 4(d). T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so f o u n d n o b a s i s f

o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f

a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y. O n D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 7 , R e a l f iled a N o tice o f

A p p e a l, a l o n g wi t h a n Ap p l i c a t i o n f o r a Ce r t i f

i c a t e o f Ap p e a l a b i l i t y . On F e b ru a ry7 , 2 0 0 8 , w e g ra n ted R e a l a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty8 to c o n s id e r w h e th e r tria l co u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to obj ectt o: ( 1) t he var i ance betw een B. B
. ’ s t es t i m on yand the cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on; and ( 2) t he tr i al cour t’ s i ns t ruct i on re g a rd in g R e a l’ s a lib i d e f e n s e . III
. B eca us e the D i s t r i ct C our t deni ed R eal ’ s pet i t i on w i t hout conduct i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, ourr evi ew of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on i s pl enary . J acobs v. H or n, 395 F. 3d 92, 99 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. U nder t he A nt i t err or i s m and Ef fe c t i v e De a t h P e n a l t yAc to f 1 9 9 6 , we a p p l yt h e s a me sta n d a rd s a s th e D istric t C o u rt: A n appl i cat i on for a w r i t of habea s corp u s on behal f of a per s on i n cus t odyp u rsuant t o t he j udgm entof a S ta t e courts hal l notbe gr ant ed w i t h r es pectt o any cl ai m t hatw as adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n St at e cour tpr ocee di ngs unl es s t he adj udi cat i on of the cl ai m – (1) resu lt ed in a d ec isi o n that w as c o n tr ary t o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e ap p l i c a t i on of, cl ear l yes t abl ishe d Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C ou rt of the U ni t ed St at es ; or ( 2) r es ul t ed i n a deci s i on t hat w as bas ed on a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f th e f a c ts i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he St at e courtpr ocee di ng. 28 U
. S. C

. § 2254( d) ; s ee a l s o M ar s hal l v. H endr i cks , 307 F. 3d 3 6 , 5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).9 R eal does not chal l enge t he s t at e cour t s ’ fa ctual d eterm ination s. R athe r, h e c o n tend s tha t th e S u p erior C o u rt ’s rejecti o n o f h is cl aim s “re su lt ed in a d ec isi o n that w as c o n tr ary to , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f , cle a rly e sta b lish e d F e d e r a l law ,” a n d th a t h e is th u s “ in c u sto d yin vi ol at i on of the C ons t itut i on orl aw s ort r eat i es of the U ni t ed S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 5 4 (a ), ( d ). W e d o n o t a g re e . A. R eal ar gues fi r s tt hat hi s t r i al couns el s houl d have r ai s ed t he var i ance betw een B. B
. ’ s t es t i m onyand the cr i m i nal i nform ati o n. T o det erm i ne w hethera var i ance vi ol at es t he C ons t i tut i on, fede r al cour t s loo k to “w hetherornott her e has b ee n p rejud ice to the d ef en d a n t, ” f

o cu sing o n the d ef

en d an t’ s r i ghtt o not i ce a nd hi s abi l i t y t o defe nd hi m s el f at t r i al

. U ni t ed St at es v. A s her , 854 F. 2d 1483, 1497 ( 3d C ir

. 1988) ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he true i nqui r y. . . i s w hethert her e has been s uch a va r i ance as t o “af fe ct the s ubs t ant i al r i ght s ” o f the acc us ed. T he gene r al rul e that al l egat i ons and pr oof m us tcorr es pond i s bas ed u p o n t h e o b v i o u s r e q u i r e me n t s ( 1 ) t h a tt he acc us ed s hal l be def

i nit el yi nfor m ed as t o t he c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , s o th a t h e m a y b e e n a b led to presenthis d e f

e nse and no tbe taken b ysurpr i se byt he evi dence offe r ed at t he t r i al ; and ( 2) t hathe m aybe pr ot ect ed agai ns t another pr os ecut i on for th e s a m e o f

f e n s e . B er gerv. U ni t ed St at es , 295 U
. S. 7 8 , 82 ( U
. S. 1935) ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s o m itted). A c c o rd in g ly , a v a ria n c e v io late s the C o n stitu tio n “ o n ly i f i ti s l i kel yt o have s urpr i s ed orot herw i s e has pr ej udi ced the d ef en se.” U n it ed S tat es v . D ara io, 44 5 F
. 3 d 2 5 3 , 2 6 2 (3 d C ir

. 2006) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Schur r , 775 F. 2d 549, 553- 54 ( 3d10 C i r . 1985) )

. I ns ofaras t he D evl i n t es tappl i ed byt he Super i or C our tr equi r es cour t s t o bal ance t he ri gh t s of t he acc used ag ai nst
“ t h e n a tu r e o f t h e c r i me a n d t h e a g e a n d c o n d i t i o n of t he v ictim ,” th is te st is in c o m p a tib le w ith f e d e ra l law . D e v lin is “contr ary t o” B er ger and re l at ed feder al deci s i ons , w hi ch foc us ex cl us i vel

y on w hethera var i ance vi ol at es t he def endant ’ s due pr o ce ss r i ght s . See W i l l i ams v. T ay l or , 529 U
. S. 362, 405 ( 2000) ( “A s t at e- cour t deci s i on w i l l cert ai nl y be cont r ary t o our cl ear l y es t abl i s hed pre cede nt i f t he st at e cour tappl i es a rul e that co n tr ad ict s the g o v ern ing law set fo rth in o u r ca ses.”). T he Super i orC our t ’ s err or , how ever , does not , byi t s el f, w a rra n t th e g ra n tin g o f h a b e a s re lief. R a th e r, w h e re a sta te pr i s oner“s ur m ount [s ] 2254( d) ’ s b art o habea s r el i ef” by s how i ng t hatt he s t at e court ’ s deci s i on i s “contr aryt o” fe der al l a w, t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s mu s t r e v i e w th e p r i s o n e r ’ s c l a i m de novo un de rt he c orr e c t fe de r a l s t a nd a r d. W i gg i ns v. Smi t h, 53 9 U. S. 5 1 0 , 5 4 2 (20 0 3 ) (cit ing W il li am s, 5 2 9 U
. S

. at 39 3 -94 , 3 9 7 , 4 1 2 ). A ppl y i n g t h a ts t a n d a r d , we d o n o tb e l i e v e t h e “ v a r i a n c e” b etw ee n B
. B .’s testi m o n yan d the in fo rm ati o n v iolated R ea l’ s due pr oces s r i ght s . T h e i nfor m at i on s t at ed thatB
. B
. ’ s r ape o c c u rre d “ o n o r a b o u t D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 6 .” “W h e re ‘o n o r a b o u t’ l anguage i s us ed, the governm enti s notr equi r ed t o pr ove the ex a c td a t e s , i f

a d a t e r e a s o n a b l yn e a ri s e s t a b l i s h e d

. ” U ni t ed S tat es v. N erse sian , 8 2 4 F
. 2 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 2 3 (2d C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ); ac co rd U n it ed S tat es v . B en so n , 5 9 1 F .3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 7 (6th C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ); U ni t ed St at es v. M at a, 491 F. 3d 237, 243 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R eed, 887 F
. 2 d 1398, 1403 ( 11t h C i r . 1989) ; U ni t ed S tat es v . L eibo w it z, 85 7 F
. 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 9 (7th C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ). O urs i s t er C ir cui t s have he l d t hatw her e, as her e, t he governm en t’ s evi dence pr oves t hatan off ens e w as comm i t t ed w ith in a m o n th o f

th e m o n th sp e c if

ied in a n “ o n o r a b o u t” in d ictm e n t o r in f

o rm a tio n , the “ re a so n a b lyn e a r” re q u ire m e n t is s at i s fi ed. See, e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. Por t el a, 167 F. 3d 687, 698 n. 7 ( 1s t C i r . 1999) ( “The i ndi ctm ent ’ s s peci fi cat ion of11 pos s es s i on ‘ on or about ’ M ar ch 1995 r eas onabl yen co m pas s es cr i m i nal conduct i n A pr i l 1995. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B ar s ant i , 943 F .2 d 4 2 8 , 4 3 8 -3 9 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (v a ria n c e o f f o u r m o n th s d id n o t p rejud ice th e de fe n d an t) ; N erse sian , 8 2 4 F
. 2 d at 1 3 2 3 (“ In ourvi ew , t he gover nm ent ’ s ar gum entt hatt he dat e of the ac tual t r ans act i on w as pos s i bly Ju lyorear l yA ugus tw as notan i m pr operm at er i al v ari ance fr om t he ‘ on oraboutJ une 1984’ dat e cha r ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent
. ”) ; cf. U ni t ed S t at es v. R os s , 412 F .3 d 7 7 1 , 7 7 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“F o u r y e a rs isn ’ t ‘ r e a so n a b ly near . ’ ”)

. A ccor di ngl y , i n char gi ng t hat t he 1996 r ape t ook pl ace “ o n o r a b o u t D e c e m b e r,” th e C o m m o n w e a lth n e c e ss a rily char ged that the at t ack mayhave oc curr ed i n N ovemberor J anuaryas w el l

. I n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t her e w as no var i ance betw een B. B
. ’ s t es t i m onyand the i nfor m at i on, and no vi ol at i on o f R e a l’ s d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts
. M o re o v e r, R eal has no tshow n p reju d ice : trial c o u n se l d id n o t t esti fyat t h e P C R A h ea ri n g that h e w as su rprised b yB
. B
. ’s t es t i m ony , norhas R eal expl ai ned how hi s defe ns e w oul d have been di ffe r enthad the i nfor m at i on expl i ci t l y s t at ed thatt he r ape o c c u r r e d i n Nov e mbe r o r Dec e mbe r 1 9 9 6
. Fo r t h i s r eas on as w el l , w e do notb el i eve thatt he di ffe r ence betw een the i nfor m at i on and B

. B
. ’ s t es t i m onyviola t ed R eal ’ s fede r al due pr oces s r i ght s . See U ni t ed St at es v. Som er s , 496 F. 2d 723, 746 ( 3d C i r . 1974 ) (va r i ance notuncons t i tut i onal unl es s defe ndant w a s “so su rpr i sed byt he p roof ad du ced thathe w as unab l e to prepare hi s defen se ad equ at el y ”); cf. K ok otan v
. U nit ed S t at es, 408 F. 2d 1134, 1138 ( 10t h C i r . 1969) ( no pr ej udi ce t o defe ndant w her e pr oof att r i al w as w i t hi n w eeks of the s peci fi c “on or about ” d at e cha r ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent )

. A ccor di ngl y , t r i al couns el w as noti neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o r ai se a m erit l es s due pr oces s obj ec t i on t o t he var i ance betw een the i nfor m at i on and B
. B
. ’ s t es t i m ony . S ee Par r i s h v. Ful comer , 150 F. 3d 326, 328 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( couns el noti neff ect i ve forfai l ing to r ai s e a m e ri tle s s a rg u m e n t)

.12 B. R eal al s o ar gues t hat hi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve for fa il ing to o b

ject t o the tri al co u rt ’s ali b i i n s tru cti o n . In R ea l’ s view , t he instruct i on : (1) did not com po rtw i t h d u e process b e c a use i t“did not cl ari fyfor t he juryt hat, i n li gh tof [ R eal ’s ] al i bi defe ns e, t i m e w as of th e essence”; and ( 2) contr avene d Penns y l v a n i a l a w, whi c h p r o v i d e s t h a tt h e a l l e g e d d a t e of o cc u rren ce is an esse n ti al elem en t of the u n d erl y ing crim e w h ere t h e d e f e n d a n tp r e s e n t s a n a l i b i

. ( A p p e l l a n t ’ s B r . a t4 5 , 4 8
. ) We d o n o t a g re e . “H abea s r el i ef f

ora due pr oces s vi ol at i on conce r ni ng an abs entordefe ct i ve j ur yi ns t ruct i on is a v ail abl e onl yw hen the abs ence of an i ns t ruct i on, or a def ect i ve i ns t ruct i on, i nfec t s t he ent i r e tr i al w i t h unfai r nes s . ” A l br echt v . H or n, 485 F. 3d 103, 129 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng C upp v. N aught en, 414 U
. S. 141, 147 ( 1973) ) ; s ee al s o H ender s on v. K i bbe, 431 U
. S. 145, 154 ( 1977) ( an i m pr opers t at e courti ns truct i on w arr ant s t he gr an t i ng of habea s r el i ef onl yupon a show i ng t hat“the ai l i ng i ns t ruct i on by i t s el f s o i nfec t ed the ent i r e tr i al t hatt he re su lt i ng convi ct i on v io late s d u e p ro c e ss , n o t m e re ly [ th a t] th e in stru c tio n is undes i r abl e, err oneous , oreven uni ver s al l ycondemned”) ( i nt ern al ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. “The bur den of demonstr at i ng t hatan err oneous i n s tru c t i o n was s o pr ej udi ci al t hati tw i l l s uppor ta col l at er al at t ack on the cons t i tut i onal val i di t yof a s t at e court ’ s j udgm enti s ev en gr eat ert han the s how i ng r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h pl ai n err oron di r ectappea l

. ” I d. Al t h o u g h Re a l c o n t e n d s t h a th i s a l i b i d e f e n s e ma d e t i me “e ssen ti al a n d o f the e ssen ce in the u n d erly ing ca se,” h e o ff ers no s uppor t i ng author i t y . ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 42. ) I n fac t , ot her Ci r c u i t s ha v e e x p r e s s l y“ r e j e c t e d t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a tt i me b e c o m e s a m a ter ial e lem e n t o f a c rim in a l o f

f e n se m e r e ly becau se the def

ens e of a l i bi i s advanc ed. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C r eamer , 721 F. 2d 342, 343 ( 11t h C i r . 1983) (c i t i ng U ni t ed S t a t e s v. K i ng , 70 3 F. 2d 11 9, 12 3- 24 ( 5th Ci r . 19 83 ) ) ; s e e al so13 U ni t ed St at es v . S tuckey , 220 F. 3d 976, 982 ( 8t h C i r . 2000) (“Tim e i s not a m a ter ial e l em ent of a cri m i nal offense u nles s m ad e so b ythe s tatu te c rea ti n g the o ff en se.”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). I n t hes e ci r cumst anc es, R eal has fai l ed t o demonst r at e thatt he tr ial c o u rt ’s in s tru c tio n – w h ic h c o n f ir m e d th e C o m m o n w e a lth’s b u rd e n o f

p re se n tin g p ro o f

o f R e a l’s g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t – “ in f

e c t[ e d ] h is e n tire tria l w ith u n f a irn e ss .” A lb re c h t, 485 F. 3d at 129; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. J acobs , 44 F. 3d 1219, 1226 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( no due pr oces s vi ol at i on w her e i ns t ruct i on, “t aken a s a w hol e, adequa t el yconvey ed the conce p tof pr oof b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t”). N orhas R eal s how n t hatt hi s i ns t ruct i on violat ed Penns y l vani a l aw . A s t he Super i orC our tnot ed, t he cha l l enged i ns t ruct i on par al l el s Penns y l vani a Sugges t ed St andar d C r i m i nal J ur yI ns t ruct i on 3. 19, “D at e of Cri m e: P roo f of D at e A l l eged N otE s s ent i al

. ” The Super i orC our tfur t herobs erved that Penns y l vani a tr i al cour t s have “ br oad di s cr et i on i n phras i ng [thei r ] i ns t ruct i ons s o l ong as t he l aw i s cl ear l y , adequa t el y , and acc ur at el ypr es ent ed t o t he j ur y . ” ( A pp. at38) ( ci t i ng C om m onw eal t h v. M i l l er , 746 A

. 2d 592, 604 ( Pa. 2000) )

. T he C o u rt th u s c o n c lu d e d th a t th e trial c o u rt p ro p e rlya d v ise d th e ju ryto cons i der[R eal ’ s ] al i bi defe ns e al ong w i t h al l of t he other evi dence i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he C om m onw eal t h s at i s fi ed i s bu rden of pr ovi ng bey ond a re as onabl e doubt t hat[R eal ] comm i t t ed th e o f f e n se s c h a rg e d . T h u s, w h e n r e a d in its e n t i r e t y , t h e c o u r t ’ s j u r y i n s t ru c t i o n c l e a r l y, a d e q u a t e l y , a n d a c c u r a t e l yr e f l e c t e d t h e l a w. As s uch, [R eal ’ s ] i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of cou n sel c la im la c k s a rg u a b le m e ri t. (A p p . at 39 -40
. )14 A fe d era l cou rtm a y re -ex am ine a stat e c o u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of i t s ow n l aw onl yw her e thi s i nt erpr et at i on “appe ar s t o be an obvi ous s ubt er fuge t o evade cons i der at i on of a fe der al i s s ue . . . . ” H al l ow el l v. K eve, 555 F. 2d 103, 107 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 7 7 ) (i n te rn al cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). B eca us e t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o s ugges t t h at t he Sup eriorC our tw as at t empt i ng “t o evade cons i der at i on of a fede r al i s s ue, ” w e mustacc eptt hat C our t ’ s concl us i on t hatt he t r i a l c o u r t ’ s i n s t ru c t i o n wa s c o n s i s t e n twi t h P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w. I d. H avi ng done s o, w e fi nd no bas i s on w hi ch t o concl ude that t his i nst ruct i on w as i m proper, ei t her un der fede ral du e process s t andar ds or s t at e l aw . A ccor di ngl y , R eal ’ s t r i al couns el w as not i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o r ai s e a m er i t l es s cl ai m , and the Super i or C our t ’ s deni al of PC R A r el i ef w as nei t her“contr aryt o, [n] or i nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i o n o f, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw . ” 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( d) ; s ee al so P arris h, 150 F. 3d at32 8 (coun sel no ti neff ect i ve fo r fai l i ng t o ra ise a m eri t l ess a rg u m e n t)

. I V. For t he r eas ons s t at ed, w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof the D is tr ic t C o u rt
.