A c c o r d i n g to th e p e t i t i o n e r (a n d h i s f a t h e r ) th e p e t i t i o n e r ’s 1 nam e i s Fredd ie By ers, I II, and his f ather ’ s is Fredd ie By ers , J r. Give n thatthe par t i es onappe al r efert o petitione r as “J r. ” a nd the c apt i on i s offi c i al l y “ J r. , ” we us e “J r. ” i n thi s opi ni on.



## 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 o. 09

- 1833 F RE DD IE L. B YERS, J R ., Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. J AM ES B ASI NGER, S upe r i nt en den t ofthe W abas h Val l ey Corr ecti onalFa ci l i ty, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on.

No . 08 CV 240

—Allen Sha rp , Judge
. A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 9, 2010

Befo re C UDAH Y, E VANS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Ci r c u i tJu dge
. A fter a j ury trial, the p etitioner, Fr edd i e Byer s, Jr ., was convi cted o ftwo co unts o ffi rs t- 1 deg r ee murde r, o ne c o unto fa tt emp ted m ur dera nd o ne2 N o. 09

- 1833

co unto fr o bb ery . The S upr eme Co ur t o fIndi an a a ffirm ed on d ire c t a p p ea l, Byers v. Indi ana , 7 0 9 N
. E.2 d 10 24 (Ind . 199 9), a n d , a fte r th e In d ian a C ou rtof A p p ea ls denie d h is peti ti on f orpost
- convi cti on r el i ef, 87 8 N
. E.2 d 542, 20 07 W L 45318 28 ( I nd . Ap p. Ct. Dec. 27, 20 07 ) , the Indi an a S upr eme Co ur t den i ed tr an sfer, 891 N
. E.2 d 41 ( I nd
. 20 08)
. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed M r. Byer s’ habea s peti ti on, in w hi ch M r. Byer s a rgued th at h is t ria l co u n se l p er for m ed d e f i c i en tly
. Byers v. Sup e r i nt e nde nt, N o. 3: 08 cv 0 240 A S, 20 09 W L 53766 2 (N
. D
. Ind
. M ar. 4, 2009 ). W e grant ed M r. By ers a certifi cate o fappeal abili ty on the questi on wh etherhe ha d been de nied ef fe c tive assistan ce of coun sel. W e affirm th e d istri ct cou rt’s den ialbecau se, even i f M r. By ers succes sfully e xhausted hi s cl ai m , i t l acks m er i t.

I . B a c kg r o und M r. Byer s was co nvi cted ba sed on the f ol l owing eve nts. O n Ja n u ar y 3 0, 19 97, Jam es E d iso n, a gu es t a t B en n ie Spear s a nd A l m eka Dodd s’ house in S ou th Bend, opened th e d oo r to “ Flin t” (a /k/a p et itio n er M r. B ye rs ) an d “G ill.” B an te r am on g t h e m en qu ick ly t u r n ed se riou s. D od d s, in th e n ex t ro om , he ar d Sp ea rs w ar n in g F lin t n otto p oin t h is gun at Spear s a n d then hear d i t di schar ge. S he ent er ed to see Fl i nt, wh o had vi si ted the i r hom e a “whole bunch ofti m es, ” ho l ding a gun a n d S pears sho t a nd woun ded o n the g r o und. F l i ntg r ab be d Do dds bythe ha i r a nd d em an d e d s h e t ell h im w h er e t h e m on ey w as , w h ile G ill l ock ed Dodd s’ chi l dren i n the bathr oo m . Fl i nt i nstru cted Gil l to c ut Edi s o n’ s ne c k wi th a k i t c he n k ni fe a nd toN o. 09

- 1833 3 t a k e Do dds t o the b a s e m ent and s ho o th e r i n the h e a d. Lu cki l y forDodd s, Gil lwas unski l l ed at hi s fi rs t tas k, and Ed i son att em pted an es cap e ou t the window
. Both Flin t a n d G ill pu rs u ed E d iso n an d sh oth im . B ac k in th e hom e, th ey fi re d b ullets i nt o the ba sem en t w he re D od d s hid , bu t d id n o t hit her. She ran to a ne ighbor’s house once she thought her house w as cl ear . Th e p oli ce a r r i v e d t o fi n d D o d d s ’ c h i l d r e n l o c k e d i n th e b a th r o o m, unharm ed. Ediso n and Spear s di ed ofthei r w ounds. Dodd s t ol d the pol i ce the sho ote r she c al l ed Fl i nt o r Fr ed had cro oke d t ee th and a scaro n hi s f ace. Dodd s a l so su g g es te d th at th e po l i ce al r ea dy ha d a pi ctur e of Fl i nt fr o m a n inc i den t atF l i nt ’ s g i rlf rien d’ s ho us e o n the ev en ing o fa pri ze fi ght. They di d have s uch a photo , and D odds i denti fi ed Fl i nt i n an ar ra y. A t t ri al, Dodd s was t he pro secuti on’ s m ai n w i tness
. N o physi cal evi dence or usabl e fi nger pri nts li nked M r. B ye rs to th e o ffen se . To d em on st ra te th e e rro r s in D od d s’ in itia l d es c rip tio n of Flin t, M r. B ye rs w a l ke d in front of the j urors to sh ow them thathis teethw ere st ra igh t a n d h is fa c e s c ar les s. D u rin g a te s t r u n of th is wa l kb e f o r e the j ur y e nt e r e d, the t r i a lj ud g e a s k e d: “W ha t’s [M r. Byer s’ ] ankl et thi ng? I s that v i sibl e? M r. B ye rs , c om e o ve r h er e p lea se . It’s oka y. T h at ’s n otso ba d . Ok ay .” A t a n evi denti ar y hea ring i n po st-co nvi cti on pro ceedi ngs, M r. B yer s co ntended that thi s “ ankl et thi ng” was a s ha ck l e o r r es tr aint. A t tr i al, the c o ur t m ade no fi nd i ngs about M r. Byer s’ need forshack l es orr est ra i nts4 N o. 09

- 1833 i n the cour tr oo m . Ind eed , there was no di scussi on o f M r . Bye r s’ wea r i ng r es tr aint s i n co ur t apa r t from the ankl et- re l ate d com m ents ofthe tr i alj ud ge. M r. Byer s’ tr i alwas i nterru pted by s eve ra lspect ato rs ’ o utbur st s. In a si deb ar pr i o r to hi s o pen i ngs ta te m en t, the p rosec u tor noted com m en ts from the gallery

— p os sib ly bythe v i ct ims’ f ami l i es , a l th o ug h the e xa ctwor ds o r the i denti ti es ofthe speak er s do not appear in the tr i al record

— w hi l e the co urt re ad the pr el i m i naryi nstr ucti ons. The pro secuto r sugge ste d that the co urt adm oni sh the s pectat or s t o be r espect ful; M r. Byer s’ tr i alco unsel a g r e e d a n d the co u r td i d s o a ft e r e x c u s i n gth e j u r y . At hi s pos t- convi cti on hea ring, M r. Byer s t est i fied t hat, at thi s point i n the tr i al, Dodd s’ m othe r and si ste r sai d “yo u gui l ty m othe r fucker, Ih op e you fry . W e s houl dn ’ t be havi ng a tr i al anyw ay, yo u know you’ re gui l ty, yo u kn ow you d id it. T hin gs of th at na tu re. ” M r . B y ers te st i fi ed th atthe j ur y he ar d Do dds’ r el at i ve s buttha t he w as payi ng at tenti on t o h i s l aw yeratthe ti m e a nd not l oo ki ng atthe j ury. Later, duri ng Dodd s’ te sti m ony, a u th o r i t i e s r e mo v e d D o d d s ’ b r o th e r fr o m th e c o u r t r o o m, p ossibly for outst an d ing w arran ts. D od d s’ m oth er, Ms
. J e a n n i e Du n l a p , r e a c t e d b y a p p a r e n t l y s h o u t i n ga nd m aking a scen e a nd , a fter ex cu sing th e j ury, the trial cou rt add re sse d her and eventual l y j ai l ed hero ve rnight f or co nt empt o fc o ur t. M r . By er s te st i fi ed th athe kne w the j ur o r s h e a r d thi s i nc i de ntb e c a us e the i r h e a ds turne d. Aft erthe se i nt er r upt i o ns a nd a t va r i o us po i nt s dur i ngthe tri al, a fte r e xc us i ngthe j ur y, the j udg e admoni sh ed th e spectat or s t o m ai ntai n properco urtroom decor um o ut o f re spect f or the j ury’ s diffi cul t j ob. A t h is post- convi cti onN o. 09

- 1833 5

M r. By ers’ trial an d a p p ellate co u nselo rs testified v ia 2 affi davi t s tha t the y ha d no re c ol l ec t i on ofthe pr oc ee di ngs or theirs tr ategy i nd epend ent ofthe rec ord evid ence. hear i ng, M r. Byer s descr ibed a thi rd i nci dent, al though ther e i s no r eco rd o fi t, wh en two gi rl s t aunt ed “y ou ar e g o i ngt o g etf o und gui l ty, y o u g onn a g etf o und g ui l ty
. ” M r . By er s te st i fi ed th athe was n’ t su r e th atthe j ury hear d them
. De fen se counselneve r obj ecte d, nor re queste d j ury questi oni ng norm ove d fo r a m i str i al base d on the disrup ti ons. M r. Byer s had notte sti fi ed at hi s t ri al. H i s l aw yer ar gued that, o n the day i n questi on, M r. Byer s was with hi s ve r y - pr egna ntg i r l fr i en d, wher e th eywer e wa tching m ovi es at M r. Byer s’ f ather ’ s ho use in Chicag o. M r. Byer s’ fathe r and gir lf riend corroborated this story. T he j ury convi cted M r. Byer s o n al lco unts, and he was se ntenced to th e m ax i m um 2 00 y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t. As n o te d, the c on vic tio n an d s en te n c e w er e a ffirm ed on d ire c t a p p ea l. Se e Byers v. Ind. , 709 N
. E
. 2d 1024 (I nd
. 1999). M r. B ye rs co l l ate ra l l y a tta cked hi s co nvi cti on ba sed on ineffecti ve assi sta nce o fco unseland other gr ounds. A t a l ll eve l s o fst ate post
- convi cti on r evie w , he a sse rt ed ani ne ffec ti ve - as si st an ce - o f

- co uns elc l ai m b as ed o n the f ai l ure oftr i alco unselto address the outbur sts attr i al ( the o utburst s g ro und )
. The post

- convi ctio n co urts deni e d r e l i e f o n thi s g r o un d b e c a us e he f a i l e d t o show that som e o fthe outbur st s occurre d orthatany j uroro r pr o s pe c t i v e j ur o r h e a r d the s pe c t a t o r s ’ st ate men t s , a nd , ther ef or e, h e fa i l ed to pro ve defi ci ent per f or m ance. 2 2007W L 45318 28, at* 6. In fed er alhabea s pro ceedi ngs,6 N o. 09

- 1833 the di str i ct c ourthel d t hat M r. Byer s’ cl ai m f ai l ed because the outbur sts di d no t c al li nto questi on M r. Byer s’ gui l t a nd bec ause ther e wa s no e vi dence that the j ury w as prej ud i ci al l y affe c ted. 20 09 W L 53766 2, at * * 3- 4. Unl i k e hi s o utbur st s g r o und, M r . By er s was l es s co nsi ste nt in h is att em pt to exhaust hi s cl ai m bas ed on t ri al counsel ’ s f ai l ures to o bj ect to M r. B ye rs’ purport ed re

str ai nts a t tria land to dem and that the tr i alj ud ge m ake fi nd i ngs b ef or e a llowing M r. Byer s t o appear b e f o r e th e j u r y i n r e s t r a i n t s ( th e r e s t r a i n t s g r o u n d )
. At an ev i denti ary hea ring be f or e the st ate post
- convi cti on tr ial c o ur t, M r . By er s su bmi tt ed a l i st, i nc l udi ngthe si m ple word “r est ra i nts, ” o fi ssues hi s pos t- convi c ti on counselhad i nadequ ate l y a dd re sse d. M r. Byer s a l so te st ifie d th at h e w as in re st ra in ts d u rin g t ria l, th at h is tr i alc o uns eldi dn’ t addr es s hi s reques t to r emov e th e re str ai nts a nd tha t the j ud ge m ade no fi nd i ngs that r estraint s wer e ne ce ss ar y . M r . By er s cl ai m ed th atthe tr i alj udg e an d j ur y kne w he was r es tr ained b ecaus e he had to w al k in fro nt o fthem wh en h e s how ed them h is t ee th
. M r. B ye rs , ho w ev er , d id n otte st ify ex p licit ly that the j ury saw the r est ra i nts. The post

- convi c tion tr i alco urt or dered M r. Byer s’ post
- convi cti on co unsel to fi l e a supplem entalam ended p eti ti on t o add re ss M r . By er s’ l ist
. In c o m pl y i ng, c o uns ela r g ue d tha t no furtherev i denti ar y hea ring was w ar ra nted and ar gued that M r. Byer s’ “r est ra i nts” i ssue had no m er i t: Inth is c as e d efe n d an t w a s r e q u ire d to w ea r an kle r es tr aints thr o ug ho utthe t r i ala nd o n a t l ea sto ne occa si on, ap peare d bef or e the j ury i n thos e r e-N o. 09

- 1833 7

M r. By ers styled this filing “M otio n to Pro ceed w ith P o st- 3 C on v iction R e l i ef Ev id en tiary H ear ing ,” bu t d id no t requ est an evi dent i ar y he ar i ng i n the body o fthe M ot i on. He c onclu d ed : “W he refore the P e t i t i on er p ray s that th is Co u rt w ill G rant thi s M oti on to P rocee d W ith the Post- Co nvicti on R el ie f Evide ntiary H ea ri ng’ s por t i on ofFi ndi ngs ofFa c tan d Con- (co n tin u ed ...) str ai nts. Tri alco unselco uld, and prob abl y s hou ld have re quested a m i str i alb as ed upon the ankl e r est r ainto bs er va ti o n b y the j ur y . W hi chi s d efi cie nt perf or m ance on the part of counsel
. H owever, it w oul d b e d iffi cul t t o show any r esul ti ng har m at th e t im e itoc c u rre d an d ce rt ain ly n ea r im p o s sib le at th is p oin t in tim e. Su c h a sh ow in g w ou ld ne cess itate con tem p oran eou s v oir d ire of the j ury for ex iste n c e of an y prejud ice to the d efend an t’s fai r tri al r ights p riorto e s t ablishing grou nd s for a m i str i alr equest. S uch an i nquir y c annot be m ade at the p r e s e ntl a t e r da t e . . . . T he g e ne r a lr ul e p r e c l udes prese nti ng a defe nd ant t o the j ury i n handcu ffs o r sh ac kle s, b u t a co u rtm a y n e e d t o d o s o in ce rt ain exce p tio nalci rcum sta nces w hen r est ra i nt i s nec essar y t o preve nt the escape o fthe pri sone r, to pro tect th ose in the cou rtroom , or to m aintain order. M r . By er s, no t sa ti sfi ed, move d the c o ur t to s tr i k e th e supp l em entalam ended p eti ti on a nd as ked f orti m e t o fin d a n ew co unsel
. M r. Byer s f ai l ed to fi nd subst i tute counseland r equeste d that hi s pos t- convi cti on co unsel co nt i nue r epr es en ta ti o n, whi ch h ad th e effec t o faba ndoninghi s m oti on. H i s pos t- convi cti on peti ti on was 38 N o. 09

- 1833

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 c l u s i o n s o fL a w ; a n d a n y o th e r pl e a di n g th a tth i s C o u r td e e ms to b e ju st a n d p ro p er in th e P re m ise s.” d en ied
. Byers v. Indi ana , N o. 71 DO 4- 9701

- CF-0 059 ( St
. J ose ph C ounty Ct. Feb. 6, 20 07)
. Bef or e the st ate post
convi cti on a pp el l ate co urt M r. Byer s, act i ng pro se, at t a c k e d p o s t
- c o nv i c t i o n c o un s e l ’ s p e r f o r man c e b a sed on hi s r e s t r a i nt s a t t r i a l ( a l tho ugh he c i t e d c a s e l aw di scussi ng federa ll aw r el ating to tr i al counsel and res tr ai nts: R oche v. D avis , 291 F .3 d 47 3, 48 3 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); Wrink les v. Indi ana , 749 N. E. 2d 11 79 , 1 19 5 ( I nd. 2 00 1) )
. The appell ate co urt denie d h is p et i ti on ba sed o n M r. Byer s’ no n- c o ns t i t ut i o na l c l a i m o f i ne ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e o fpost
con viction cou ns el w ithou t d isc us sing his trialcou ns el’ s perf or m ance r ega rdi ng hi s r est ra i nts. 20 07 W L 453 1828, at * 5- 8. A fterthe Suprem e Cour t o f In d iana deni ed tr an sfe r, B yers v. State, 891 N
. E
. 2d 41 (Ind
. 2008), M r. Byer s fi l ed a federa lhabea s p eti ti on. The di str i ct cour t fou n d thatM r. Byer s had pro cedural l y def aul ted ( b y fai l i ng to exhaust) hi s r est ra i nts g ro und because M r. Byers p ro ceeded w i th post

- convi cti on co unsel knowing that his c ou nselwould ar gue a gainst hi s r estr ai nts g ro und
. S ee 2009 W L 53766 2, at* 3.

I I . Discussi on A . M r . Bye r s di d not exhaust h i s cl ai m on t he r es train ts grou n d . W e ca nnot r evi ew a habeas peti ti oner ’ s co nsti tuti onal i ssue unle ss h e h as pro vi ded the sta te cour ts w i th anN o. 09

- 1833 9 opportunity t o re sol ve i t “by i nvoking o ne co m ple te ro und o fthe sta te’ s e stabl i shed appel l ate r eview pro cess . ” O ’Su lliv a n v . B o erck el , 52 6 U.S . 8 38, 84 5 ( 1999 ) ; se e 28 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4(b) ( 1) ( A). A pet i ti o ne r m us t f ai r l y pr es en t hi s fe deralcl ai m s t o the s tat e co urts byar gui ng bo th th e la w an d t h e f a c ts u n d er lyin g t h em . B a ldw in v . Reese, 54 1 U .S. 27, 29 , 32 (20 04 ) (ex p lain in g th at, to c o m p ly w i th the r equi re m ent that the cl ai m s assert vi ol ati ons of the fe de r a lc o ns t i t ut i o n, the p e t i t i o ne r ma y s i mpl y l abel h is c lai m “federa l ” o r ci te case s that deci de the cl ai m o n fed er al g ro u n d s); St e ve ns v. M cBr i de, 48 9 F
. 3d 883, 89 4 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); An de rs on v . Benik, 47 1 F
. 3d 811, 81 5 ( 7th Cir
. 2006 )
. “[ T]he burden i s on the peti ti oner t o ra i se hi s federa lcl ai m in the sta te cour t a t a ti m e when stat e proce du ra ll aw per m i ts i ts consi derat i on o n the m er i ts, ev eni fthe s ta te c o ur t co ul d ha ve i den ti fi ed an d add re sse d the federa l questi on w i thout i ts ha vin g been raised. ” Bel l v. Cone, 5 43 U. S
. 4 47, 4 51 n. 3 ( 20 05 ) ( ci ting B aldw in ). W e u se fou r fac to rs to ev alu at e w h et h er a p et iti o ne r ha s “f ai r l y pr es en te d” hi s claim: “ 1) whethe r the pet i ti o ne r r el i ed o n fede r alc as es tha t en g ag e i n a c o nsti tuti onalanal ysi s; 2) wh et h er the peti ti onerr el i ed on sta te case s which a pp l y a co nsti tuti onalanal ysi s t o si m i l ar f a c t s ; 3 ) w h e th e r th e p e t i t i o n e r fr a me d th e c l a i m in t e r ms so parti cul aras to cal lto m in d a s peci fi c co nsti tuti onal ri ght; and 4) wh etherthe peti tio n er al l ege d a patte rn o f f acts thati s wel lwithi n the m ai nstr eam o fco nsti tuti onal l i ti gat ion. ” S ee Whitev. Ga etz , 58 8 F
. 3d 1135 , 11 39 ( 7th C ir. 2009). W h en a p et itio n er h as n otp ro p er ly a ss er te d h is federa lcl ai m s a t e ach l eve lo fr evi ew and i t is cl earthat10 N o. 09

- 1833 the s tat e co urts would now hol d thos e c lai m s pro cedural l y b ar re d, federa lco urts m ay not add ress those cl ai m s unl es s th e pet i ti o ne r d em o ns tr at es c au se a nd pr ej udi ce o r a funda m en ta lmis ca r r i ag e o fj us ti ce i fthe cl aim s are i gnor ed. S ee M cGe ev. Bar t ow , 59 3 F
. 3d 556, 56 5 (7th C i r . 2 0 10 ); Wood s v. Schw artz , 58 9 F
. 3d 368, 37 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. M r . By er s ar g ue s th at he e xha us te d the f ac tu al b as is for h is re st ra in ts cla im by arg u in g it in ( a) hi s a tto rney ’ s p ost- convi cti on s up ple m entalam ended petition , (b) hi s pro seVe r i fi ed M o ti o n t o S tr i k e an d ( c) hi s pro seap p ell ate brief.

1. Post- convi ct i on pro ceedi ngs. Even tho ug h Mr. By er s pr es en te d hi s r es tr aint s g r o und to t h e t ri alco urt thro ugh hi s s up ple m entalam ended pe t i t i o n, h e di d n o tp r e s e nt iton a pp e a l
. Mr
. By e r s , a ppearing pro se, pres en ted an ineffective-assistan ce-ofpost-c onvi cti on- counsel cl ai m r atherthan an i neffecti veass i sta nce- of

- tr i al-counsel cl ai m . A t di ffer ent l eve l s o f po st-co nvi cti on o r habeas pro ceedi ngs a “peti ti onerm ay r efo r m ul at e [ hi s] c l ai m s so l o ngas the s ubs ta nc e o fthe cl ai m r em ains the sa m e. ” Sw eeney v. C a rter, 36 1 F
. 3d 327, 3 3 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( fi n d i n ge x h a u s t i o n b e c a u s e a l lc l a i ms f ocuse d on co unsel ’ s a dvic e r ega rd ing a use- i m m unity a g r e e men te v e n tho ugh he a s s e r t e d v a r y i nga men dm ents as the ba sis f orthe cl ai m ) ; se e a l so U nited Sta tes v. Fa i r m an , 70 7 F
. 2d 936, 94 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 83)
. B u t, w e hav e he l d tha t ani ne ffec ti ve - as si st an ce - o f

- po st
- co nv i cti o ncou ns el cl aim doe s no t ex ha us t anine ffecti ve-assistan ce-oftr i al

- co uns elc l ai m b ec au se the c l ai m s ar e m o re tha n aN o. 09

- 1833 11

var i ati on in l ega ltheo ry . S ee Howar d v. O ’ Sul l i van , 18 5 F.3 d 72 1, 7 24 -26 (7t h C ir. 19 99 ) (ex p lain in g t h at th er e is no c o ns ti tu ti o na lg ua r an tee ofpo st
- co nv i ct i o n t r i alc o unsel ) ; se e a l so Sprei tzerv. Schom ig, 2 19 F. 3d 639, 64 5- 47 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( ho l di ngtha t pet i ti o ne r di d no t presen t hi s ineffecti ve- ass i sta nce- of

- sente nci ng- counselcl ai m to the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cou rt wh en he ra i sed an ineffecti veassistan ce-of-post-con viction-cou ns el cl aim ). Howar d a nd Sp reitzer ’ s pet i ti o ne r s, ho wev er, w ere re prese nted by counsel
. S ee Sp reitzer, 2 19 F. 3d at 645; Ho w a rd, 18 5 F
. 2d at 725. M r. Byer s, as not ed, appeal ed h i s p o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n p r o se, and a c ourtsho uld be w i l l i ng to co nstrue m or e l iber al l y a pro sel iti gan t’s cl ai m s than thos e of a counsel ed l i ti gant. See Hai ne s v. Kerner, 40 4 U .S. 5 19, 52 0 ( 1972 )
. Fo r exam ple , we have excused the er ro r ofa pro sep et i ti onerwh o si m plym i sl abel ed hi s cl ai m . S ee Lew is v. Sternes , 39 0 F
. 3d 1019 , 10 27 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( hol ding th at a pro se post- convi cti on peti ti on m aking a cl ai m l abel ed i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o f tr i alco unself orf ai l ure to m ake a Brady c l ai m co uld be i nt e r pr e t e d a s s i mpl y mak i nga B rady cl ai m , bas ed on th e actu al l an gu age of the p etition). A p p lyi ng thes e stan d ard s, w e find th at M r. By ers did n ot e x h aust hi s r est ra i nts c l ai m . In hi s pro sest ate post- convi cti on a pp el l ate br i ef, M r. Byer s r ai sed seve ra lcl ai m s: i neffecti ve ass i stance o fpost
- convi cti on counsel f or f ai l ure to re prese nt peti ti oner i n a m anner that com port s with d u e p ro cess o fl aw , and i neffecti ve assistan ce of both trial a n d ap p ell ate cou ns el for f ail ure to adequatel y a dd re ss the o utburst s a t t rial. M r. Byer s’12 N o. 09

- 1833

There is n o q uest ion that M r. By ers s ub se quently add res se d 4 the cl aim i n his app eal to the Sup rem e Court ofIndiana. ar gum ents about hi s res tr ai nts at tri alar e t i ghtl y c ouched i n a n a r g ume ntab o utthe i ne ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e o fpost
convi cti on cou n sel
. Even with the l iber altr end m ar ked by Bald w in and the g ener ous c onst ructi on we gi ve to pro se p e t i t ion er s’ c laim s, M r. B ye rs d id n otm ee t h is burden off ai r prese ntm ent o n appeal gi ven the va ri ati on in l ega ltheo ri es between hi s pos t- convi cti on pro ce eding s an d hi s st at e appe al, namel y hi s pr es en tment ofh i s r e s t r a i nt s c l a i m o nlya s r e pr e s e nt i ngi ne ffe c ti ven es s o f p os t-c on vic tio n co u n se l. 4

2. Cause a nd pr ej ud i ce. A l ternati vel y, M r. Byer s cl aim s he dem onst ra ted cause and p r ej ud i c e t o e xc us e h i s de f a ul tb e c a us e h i s p o s tconvi ctio n counsel, act i ng as M r. Byer s’ ag ent, f ai l ed to sa t i s fy h i s du t i e s t o h i s p r i nc i pa lb y i g no r i ngMr
. By er s’ d ire c tiv es to rais e t h e re st ra in ts cla im
. Wai nwr igh t v. Sy k es , 433 U.S
. 72 ( 1977 )
. M r. Byer s ci tes C le m m ons v. D el o , f orthi s a gency - l aw -base d a rgum ent. Se e 124 F. 3d 944, 94 7- 49 (8t h C ir. 19 97 ) (fin d in g p et i tio n er ex h au st ed h is cl ai m s when he m ove d the s tat e s up re m e co urt to all ow him to rai se th em w he n h is coun sel refus ed to). Bu t, as M r. Byer s a c kn ow l edges i n expli ci tl y decl i ni ng to m ake thi s a rgum ent, i neffecti venes s o fpost
- convi cti on co uns el do es no t su ppl y “c au se ” i n th e cau se- an d- pr ej udice fo rm ula
. S ee Cole m an v. Thom ps on , 50 1 U.S
. 72 2, 75 3N o. 09

- 1833 13

M r. Bye rs doe s no tar gue thata fundam en t al m i s c ar ri age 5 of justice excu ses his d efau lt. (1 9 9 1); Szabo v. Walls , 3 13 F
. 3d 39 2, 3 97( 7th Ci r . 2 002). M r. By e r s ha s no t de mon s t r a t e d “ c a us e ” s uffi c i e ntto excuse hi s def aul t. 5

3. Ev i den t i ary heari ng. M r . B ye rs als o re q u es ts an ev id en tia ry h ea rin g. A fede ral cou rt i s p reclud ed from hold ing an eviden tiary h ea ring o n a hab eas cl ai m i fthe peti ti oner“f ai l ed to d ev e lop the factu al basis of[ th e] cl aim i n Stat e cou rt proce edi ngs. ” 2 8 U.S
. C. § 2 254( e) (2); se e a l so Wi l l i am s v. Taylo r, 529 U .S. 42 0, 43 7 (2 00 0); A llen v . B uss , 55 8 F
. 3d 657, 664 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. In the p re sent case , the post- convi cti on tr i alco urt ask ed the parti es to re quest a n additi onal evi denti ar y hear i ng i f necess ar y after M r. Byers ’ p ostco nv i ct i o n c o uns eli nv es ti g at ed M r . By er s’ c la i m s, i ncl ud i ng the r est ra i nts g ro und . M r. Byer s then proc eeded w i th cou n selwh ose supplem entalam ended p eti ti on argu ed that th e r e w as no need f or a furt he r eviden tiary h e a r i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y , u n d e r 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) , we are p reclud ed from prov iding M r. B yers an eviden tiary h e a r i n go n th i s c l a i m.
B . M r . B y e r s di d n o te s t a bl i s h av i o l a t i o n o fhi s r i g ht to ef fecti ve ass istanc e of cou n sel. M r. B ye rs ’ ine ffec tiv e-a ss ist an c e-o f-c ou n se l cla im re l ate d to the o utburst s a t t ri alf ai l s on the m er i ts. To14 N o. 09

- 1833 p r e v a i lo n a n i n e ffe c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- t r i a l

- c o u n s e lc l a i m, th e pe titi one r m us t d em ons trate th at (a) his c ou ns el’ s per f o r m an ce fel lb el o w an o bj ec ti ve s ta nda r d o fr ea so nab len es s a n d (b) th e c ou n se l’s e r r or s s o p rej u d ice d h is d efe n se th at it d ep riv ed h im of a fa ir tr ial. St ri ck l and v. Was h. , 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 68 7-8 8 (1 98 4); Starkweatherv. Sm ith , 574 F.3d 3 99 , 4 02 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. To s how prej ud i ce, M r. Byer s m ust pro ve “thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tytha t, b utf o r c o uns el ’ s unpr o fes si o na le r r o r s, the re su lt of t h e p ro c ee d i n g w ou ld h av e b ee n d iffer en t. A reason able p robab il ity is a p robab il ity su ffici en t to un d erm i ne co nfi dence in the outc om e. ” St r i ck l and, 466 U
. S. at 694. The In d ian a Courto fA pp eal s a dd re sse d M r. Byer s’ outbur sts gr ound on the m er i ts, and w e r evi ew that cou rt ’ s dec i si o n un derthe l i m i ta ti o ns i m po se d b y the A nt iterrori sm and Effective D eath Pen alty A ct (A E D PA ). U nd erthe A ED PA , a federa lco u rtm ay gr ant habe as re lief on ly if th e sta te c ou rt ’s ad j u d ica tio n of th e p e t itio n er ’s c on st itu tio n a l c l aim s w as ba se d on u n re as on ab le fact-findi ngo r was c o nt r ar y t o , o r i nv o l ve d a n un r ea so nabl e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabl i shed fed er all aw o r a n un r e a s o nab l e de t e r mi na t i o n o fthe f a c t s . 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 254( d). W hethera sta te ruling r uns af oulo fthes e A ED PA st andards i s a l ega ldeterm i nati on we re vi ew de no vo , b ut th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o ns ar e r evi ew ed f orcl earer ro r. S ee S m i t h v . G r a ms , 5 65 F.3d 103 7, 1043 ( 7th Cir. 2009). M r. B ye rs firstarg u es th at th e s ta te co u rtw ro n gly rej ecte d his cl aim thataddit i onalo utburst s, abs ent fro mN o. 09

- 1833 15 th e record , also occu rre d a t trial. Th e trialrecord re veal s tw o distu rb ances: spect ato r’ s co m m ents as no te d b y the pr o se cut o r b efore op en i nga r g um en t an d M s. Dunl ap’ s co m m o ti o n. M r . Bye r s t es ti fi ed athi s ev i den

ti ar y hea ring tha t duri ng the fi rs t r eco rded dis turba nce an d du rin g a third , un record ed distu rban ce, the victim ’s f am i l y o r o the r g a l l e r y me mbe r s ma de c o mm e nts ab ou t h is gu ilt. T h e s ta t e a p p ella te co u rtrea so n ab ly co nc l ude d tha t th er e was no f ac tu alb as i s f o r findi ng that the s pectat ors’ outbur sts o ccurr ed i n the m anner M r . By e r s c l a i med the y h a d. S e e 2 0 0 7WL 4 5 3 1 8 2 8 , a t* 6; 2 8 U .S.C . § 22 54 (e); Rev e rv. Ace ve do , 59 0 F
. 3d 533, 53 7 (7th C ir. 2010) (“Section 2254 (e)( 1)’s text m akes .
. . clear:

‘ a dete rm i nati on o fa fac tu ali ssue m ade bya St ate cou rt sha llbe pre su m ed to be correct.’ ”). M r. By ers nex t con ten d s tha t t h e Ind iana C ou rt o fA p p e a l s mi s a p p l i e d Stric kl andwheni t he l d tha t he did notpro ve the r equi si te prej ud i ce a t tria l. “ The bar f o r es tab l i sh i ngtha t a st at e co ur t’ s appl i ca ti o n o fthe St r i ck l andst andard w as ‘ unreas onabl e’ is a hi gh o ne, and onl y a cl earer ro r in apply i ng St r i ck l andw il l su p p ort a wri t o fhabea s co rpus. ” All e n v . C ha nd ler, 55 5 F
. 3d 596, 60 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. W hi l e i t i s wel les tabl i shed that a defendant’s due proc ess r igh ts i ncl ud e a r i ght t o an unbia sed and i m parti alj ury, i t i s e qually c l earthatnot eve ryo utburstor d isruptio n w ar ra nts a new tri al
. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 5 07U. S
. 7 25 , 738 (1 99 3) ( ho l di ng th at, becau se “[i ]t i s v irtu all y i m p ossible to shiel d j urors fro m ev er y c o n t ac t o r in flu en c e t h at m igh t t h eo re tic ally affec t th ei r vo te , ” a ne w t r i al i s o nl y r equi r ed w he re th er e is d isc er n ible p rej u d ice ); Irwi n v . Down , 3 6 6 U
. S. 717, 728 (1961).16 N o. 09

- 1833 W e ha ve no r ec o r d e vi den ce o fwhatwas s ai d , a nd we c a n n o tn o tfi n d p r ej u d i c e s t e mmi n gfr o m a mb i g uo us o r i nno cuo us c om m en ts
. In Whi t e he ad v
. Cowan , we f o und “ i nno cuo us ” a vi ct i m ’ s m o th er ’ s o utbur sta sk i ng peti ti onerw h y h e had k i l l ed herdaughter

— an o utburst that occur re d when the j ury w as sea ted but the jud ge ha d step p ed out. S e e 2 63 F.3d 70 8, 724-25 (7th Cir. 2001); see al so U nited States v. Al-Shahin , 474 F
. 3d 941, 94 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. In o urc a s e , o fc o ur s e , the di s t urb ances o cc ur r ed when th e tr i al j ud g e was abl e to moni to r a nd ad d re ss th em im m ed iat ely

— whi chhe di d b y e xc us i ng th e jur y a n d ad m on ish in g t h e s p ec ta to rs to m ain ta in properet i q u et te . A t the end oftr i al, the j ud ge questi o ne d the j ury, a nd no t o ne j ur o r i ndi ca te d tha t th e disturbance s o r any o therev ent a ffecte d his or her abi l i ty to re nd era f ai r ver dict
. S ee Whi t e he ad, 26 3 F
. 3d at 726. Las tly, M r . By er s at te m pts t o pr o ve pr ej udi ce wi tha j uror’s affi d avit i n w hich she tes tifies t h a t M s. D un lap’s scene fri ghtene d her. The go ver nm ent c onte nd s that M r. Byer s has notm ade the re quisite sho w i ng, under § 2 254( e) ( 2) , to al l ow us to consi der the affid avitbec ause it w as firstp re se n te d to th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U
. S
. a t 43 2. The di st r i ctc o ur t, wi th o utde ci di ng w hetherM r. Byer s s ati sfi ed § 2 254( e)(2 ), co ncl ud ed that the affid avi t di d not pro vi de evi dence thatthe j urorwas i n c a p ab l e o fma k i n ga f a i r o r i mp a r t i a ld e c i s i o n . We a g r e e : th e a ffi d a v i ti s i r r e l e v a nt
. We w i l ln o tp r e s u me that the j urorwas unabl e t o f ol l ow inst ructi ons j u st because she was fri ghtene d by M s. Dun l ap’s co m m oti on a t tr ial, an d ce rt ain ly n ott h a t M r . B ye rs ’ tria l w ou ld have e nd e d wi th a no t
- g ui l t y v e r di c t
. M r . By e r s di d no tN o. 09

- 1833 17

In add it ion, even ifM r. B yers had no t proce du ral ly def aulte d 6 his res t r a i nt s g r ou nd , h e c a nn otpr ov e pr ej udi c e , e ve n un der t h e de n o v o r e v i e w r e q u i r e d b e c a u s e th e s t a t e c o u r t s di d not reac h thi s is sue. See R om pil l a v. Beard , 5 4 5 U .S. 37 4 , 3 9 0 (2 0 0 5 ); Wigg ins v. S m ith , 53 9 U .S. 510 , 53 4 (20 0 3 ). A s M r. By ers no tes, a d efend an t m a y ad v an ce a F ifth A m en d m en t d u e p ro cess claim b ased on ev id en ce tha t h e w as w ear ing v isible re strain ts a t tr ia l, D eck v. M i ssouri, 54 4 U .S. 622 , 62 9, 635 ( 20 05 ), b u t to c l ai m a vi ol at i on ofhi s Si xth A m en dm en tr i ghtt o c ouns el, he m ust als o prov e prej ud ic e. See St r i ck l a nd, 4 6 6 U .S. at 6 9 2 -9 3 . C f. M arqu ard v. Sec’y f

or t he D ep’ t of

C orr. , 42 9 F .3d 127 8, 131 3 (11th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (exp lain ing tha t D ec kdid not affectthe St r i ck l a nd an aly sis)
. M r. B y ers arg u es tha t his case turn ed on the cred ib ility ofDodds, a nd, the re f or e, an y e ro s i on ofthe pr es um pt i on of inn oce nc e p reju d iced him
. B u t D od d s’ cre d ib ility w as w elles tablish ed : s he l ed p oli ce to M r. By ers thr oug h her pers onal knowl edge ofhi m , ofhi s nic kna m e and ofhis gir l f ri en d, an d s he p o sit iv el y id en tifi ed M r. B y er s i n a p h o to g ra p h ic ar ra y . C f. St r i ck l a nd, 46 6 U .S. at 69 6 (“[A ] v e r d ict or co nc lusio n o nly w eakly supp orte d by the rec ord i s m ore li kely to ha v e b een a ffe c t e d b y e r r or s tha n on e wi th ov e r whe l m ing re c or d s up port. ”)
. M r. By ers hasn’ t s how n prej ud ic e because the tr ial e v i de n c e a g a i n s th i m i s suf f i c i e n t l y r o b u s t
. As a r e s u l t, we w ou ld also reject M r. By ers’ restra ints g ro u nd on the m erits.

7- 9- 10 m eethi s bur den ofpro vi ng tha t, but f orthe o u tbu rs ts or disturbance s, the re sul t o fhi s t ri alwould hav e be en differ ent. 6 The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .