# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 22 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ch ris to ph er Di ne aa Ba ht uo h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Mi ch el le Sm it h, Warde n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 0, 2 01 7

Fil ed : Ap ril 28 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ch ris to ph er Bah tu oh pa rti ci pa te d in a dr iv e by sh oo ti ng an d was co nv ic te d in

st at e co ur t of fir st de gr ee fel on y m ur de r. Afte r un s u cces sf ul ly se ek in g st at e

po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f, he br ou gh t th is fed eral ha be as act io n un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54

.

He cl ai m s th a t h i s de fen se co un se l pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce by ad vi si ng hi mno t to te st ify af te r c o un se l ha d pr om is ed th e jury th at he wou ld

. The di st ric t co ur t 1

de ni ed ha be as rel ie f, an d B ah tu oh ap pe al ed . W e aff irm.

I.

In A pr il 2 00 9 Ch ris to ph er Bah tu oh was dr iv in g in a Mi nn eap ol is n ei ghbo rh oo d

wit h Lam on t McGe e, a m em be r of t h e I

- 9 g a n g

. Alt ho ug h Bah tu oh was no t a

m em be r of th e ga ng

, he ha d as so ci at ed wit h I-9 m em be rs fo r y ears

. Dur in g th ei r rid e

Bah tu oh saw Kyle Park er, a m em be r of th e riv al Tali ba n ga ng , s ta nd in g wit h a few

fri en ds . Bah tu oh kn ew Park er fro m sch oo l an d tu rn ed hi s car ar ou nd to sp eak wit h

hi m

. W he n Park er sp ot te d th e car ap pr oa ch in g, he to ld hi s fri en ds th at it was on ly Fat

Ch ris

, a no bo dy. Bah tu oh st op pe d hi s car by Park er, an d McGe e pu ll ed ou t a gu n an d

fir ed in to Park er's ch es t. The sh ot s ki ll ed Park er, an d Bah tu oh sp ed away. Bah tu oh

th en dro pp ed off

McGee an d wen t i nt o h id in g h im se lf.

App ro x i m at el y si x week s la te r, Bah tu oh su rren de red to th e po li ce wit h th e

as si st an ce of hi s lawy er. He in it ia ll y de ni ed th at he or hi s ca r ha d b een at t he sc en e

of th e m ur de r, bu t in a la te r in te rv ie w ad m it te d Park er ha d be en s h o t f r o m hi s car.

Afte r th e st at e fil e d it s co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t hi m

, Bah tu oh ex pl ai ne d to th e gr an d jury

th at on th e ni gh t in qu es ti on he ha d be en ha ng in g ou t wit h a gr ou p o f fri en ds whe n

sh ot s wer e fi red fro m

a car d riv in g b y . The g ro up fle d t o n earb y cars , and Bah tu oh

go t in to hi s al on g wit h McGe e. Sh or tl y aft er th e t w o d ro ve away, Bah tu oh sa w

Park er fla gg in g hi m do wn. The n he tu rn ed hi s car aro un d, st op pe d ne xt to Park er an d

as ke d "wh at 's up ? " Acco rd in g to Bah tu oh

, he "d id n't se e [Mc Gee's ] gu n un ti l it was

. . . al read y st an di ng ou t th e win do w," rig ht be fo re McGe e sh ot Park er. The gr an d

jury ind ic te d B ah tu oh on m ul ti pl e co un ts of f

irs t an d s eco nd de gr ee m

ur de r.

1 The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of

Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-The cas e was tri ed to a jury. Befo re tri al Bah tu oh an d hi s at to rn ey de ci de d th at

he sh ou ld te st ify on hi s own be ha lf, an d de fen se co un se l to ld th e jury du rin g op en in g

st at em en ts th at Bah tu oh wou ld waiv e hi s rig ht to rem ai n si le nt an d te st ify. Defen se

co un se l pr ed ic te d th at Bah tu oh wou ld ex pl ai n ho w he an d Park er were acq ua in ta nc es

fro m co ll eg e, th at he was no t ve ry fam il ia r wit h McGe e, an d why he ha d be li ev ed th at

McGe e was no t arm ed

. Afte r go in g ov er Bah tu oh 's te st im on y wit h th e jury, de fen se

co un se l as ke d t h e ju r o r s " t o ke ep an op en m in d" un ti l Bah tu oh to ok th e st an d an d

ex pl ai ne d wh at ha d a ct ua ll y ha pp en ed on th e d ay

of t he ki ll in g.

The ni gh t be fo re th e st at e res te d it s cas e, de fen se co un se l ne ve rth el es s de ci de d

to ch an ge st rat eg y. Th e s t at e ha d al read y in tro du ced m os t of th e ev id en ce th at

de fen se co un se l ha d pl an ne d fo r by ha vi ng Bah tu oh 's gr an d jury te st im on y read in to

th e reco rd

. Defen se co un se l als o bel ie ve d at thi s po in t th at th e st at e's ev id en ce was

weak an d th at it ha d fai le d to pr ov e it s cas e. Co un se l ad vi se d Bah tu oh no t to te st ify,

an d Bah tu oh to ok th e ad v i c e

. Th e de fen se th eref or e res te d im m ed ia te ly aft er th e

st at e, wit ho ut in tro du ci ng an y ev id en ce o f it s o wn.

Dur in g c lo si ng arg um en ts , def en se co un se l ad dr es se d hi s ch an ge in st rat eg y

,

ex pl ai ni ng th at it was hi s fau lt th at Bah tu oh ha d no t te st ifi ed an d th at he ha d de ci de d

no t to pu t Bah tu oh on th e st an d be cau se "t he go ve rn m en t di dn 't pr ov e th ei r cas e an d

hi s tru th fu l st or y cam e acro ss in hi s gr an d jury te st im on y ." Defen s e co un se l's

pr ed ic ti on ab ou t th e st ren gt h of th e go ve rn m en t's cas e pr ov ed on ly pa rti al ly co rrec t,

ho wev er. The jury acq ui tt ed Bah tu oh of fir st de gr ee pr em ed it at ed mu r d e r

, b ut

co nv ic te d hi m of fir st de gr ee fel on y m ur de r, whe re th e un de rlyin g fel on y was a dr iv e

by sho ot in g, an d s eco nd de gr ee m ur de r, bo th for th e b en efi t o f a g an g.

Bah tu oh ap pe al ed an d al so so ug ht st at e po st co nv ic ti on r e li ef on th e ba si s of

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l a n d o t h e r cl ai m s. The st at e co ur t de ni ed Bah tu oh

po st co nv ic ti on r el ie f. In a co ns ol id at ed ap pe al

, th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t

affi rm ed Bah tu oh 's co nv ic ti on an d th e de ni al of po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. St at e v.

-3

-Bah tu oh

, 84 0 N.W .2d 80 4 (Mi nn

. 20 13 ). As to Bah tu oh 's in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un s e l c l ai m

, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at de fen se co un se l's ad vi ce to Bah tu oh no t to

te st ify, de sp it e co un se l's pr ev io us st at em en ts to th e j u r y, w a s no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly

de fic ie nt

. Id

. at 81 6– 18

. Bah tu oh th en so ug ht ha be as rel ie f in fed eral co ur t un de r 28

U.S.C. § 22 54 on m

u l t i p l e gr ou nd s, in cl ud in g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l.

Uni te d St at es Mag is t r a t e Ju dg e Je ffre y J. Key es is su ed a Rep or t an d

Rec om m en da ti on

, ad vi si ng th e di st ric t co ur t t o d e n y Bah tu oh ha be as rel ie f. The

di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e R e p o r t an d Rec om m en da ti on an d is su ed a cert ifi cat e of

ap pe al ab il it y

on Bah tu oh 's i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m

.

II.

Bah tu oh arg ue s th at th e di st ric t erre d by co nc lu di ng th at he was no t en ti tl ed to

ha be as r e l i e f o n th e ba si s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. "We rev ie w le ga l

is su es pr es en te d in a ha be as pe ti ti on de no vo " an d t h e d i s tri ct co ur t's "u nd erl y in g

fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r." Nun le y v. Bo wers ox

, 7 8 4 F

. 3 d 4 6 8, 47 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

W he n, as he re, a cl ai m pr es en te d in a 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 ha be as pe ti ti on ha s

b e e n ad jud ic at ed by th e st at e co ur t, "h ab eas rel ie f is pe rm is si bl e un de r t h e

Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Dea t h P e n a l ty Act of 19 96 ('AEDPA') on ly if th e st at e

co ur t's de te rm in at io n

. . . 'wa s co nt rary t o, or in vo lv e d a n u n r e a so na bl e ap pl ic at io n

of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w

. . . [o r] w a s ba se d on an un reas on ab le

de te rm in at io n o f th e fact s.'" W il li am s v. Ro pe r

, 69 5 F.3 d 82 5, 83 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

(ci ta ti on om it te d) (q uo ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )). Alt ho ug h Bah tu oh co nc ed es th at

th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t pr op er l y r e ci te d th e go ve rn in g fed eral la w fo r

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m s, he arg ue s th at th e co ur t's de ci si on was ba se d

on an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of th at la w an d an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e

fact s. Each arg um en t wi ll be ad dr es se d i n t ur n.

-4

-A.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th e st an da rd go ve rn in g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l cl ai m s in St ric kl an d v

. Wa s h i n g to n

, 46 6 U.S. 66 8 (1 98 4)

. To es ta bl is h

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l

, a p e t i t i o n e r m us t sh ow bo th th at (1 ) hi s co un se l's

pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt

, or th at it "fe ll be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of

reas on ab le ne ss ," an d al so th at (2 ) "t he de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ic ed th e de fen se ."

I d

. a t 6 8 7– 88

. Bah tu oh arg ue s th at th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t un reas on ab l y

ap pl ie d St ric kl an d 's de fic ie nc y pr on g by co nc lu di ng th at it was no t ob je ct iv el y

un reas on ab le fo r de fen se co un se l to ad vi s e B a h t u o h no t to te st ify aft er ha vi ng

pr om is ed th e jury tha t h e wou ld

.

A fed eral co ur t m ay gr an t rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )’s "u nr eas on ab le

ap pl ic at io n" cl au se if a st at e co ur t ha s un reas on a b l y a p p l ie d th e go ve rn in g le ga l

pr in ci pl e to th e fact s of th e cas e. W il li am s v. Tay lo r

, 52 9 U.S. 36 2, 41 3 (2 00 0)

. The

st at e co ur t’s de ci si on m

u st be "m or e th an in co rrec t or erro ne ou s" —i t "m us t be

ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le ." Loc kyer v. And rad e

, 53 8 U.S. 63

, 75 (2 00 3)

. A de ci si on

is no t ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le if "fa irmind ed juri st s c o u l d d i s ag ree" as to it s

co rrec tn es s. Harri ng to n v. Ri ch te r

, 56 2 U.S. 86

, 10 1 (2 01 1) (q uo ti ng Yarb or ou gh v.

Alv arad o , 54 1 U.S. 6 52 , 66 4 (2 00 4) ).

E st ab li sh in g ob

jecti ve un reas on ab le ne ss is pa rti cu la rly di ffi cu lt wit h

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s. St ric kl an d pro vi de s a d efer en ti al st an da rd

to rev ie w s uc h cl ai m s by h av in g co ur ts "ap pl y a 'st ro ng pre su m

pt io n' th at co un se l's

r e p r e s e n t at io n was wit hi n th e 'wid e ran ge ' of reas on ab le pr of es si on al as si st an ce."

Harri ng to n

, 56 2 U.S. at 10 4 (q uo ti ng St ric kl an d

, 46 6 U.S. at 68 9)

. Bec au se th is

st an d a r d ba se d on reas on ab le pr of es si on al as si st an ce is br oa d an d ge ne ral

, co ur ts

ha ve "m or e le eway [u nd er 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )]

. . . in reac hi ng ou tc om es in cas e-b y

cas e de te rm in at io ns ." Id

. at 10 1 (q uo ti ng Yarb or ou gh

, 54 1 U.S. at 66 4 ). Our rev ie w

of th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's ap pl ic at io n o f St ric kl an d 's d efi ci en cy el em en t to

-5

-Bah tu oh 's ap pe al "i s th us do ub ly de fere nt ia l," req ui rin g a "h ig hl y de fere nt ia l lo ok at

co un se l's pe rfo rm an ce th ro ug h th e de f e r e n t i a l le ns of § 22 54 (d )." Cu ll en v.

Pi nh ol st er

, 56 3 U.S. 17 0, 19 0 (2 01 1) (in te rn al ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

Giv en th is do ub ly de fere nt ia l rev i e w, we can no t sa y th at th e Mi nn es ot a

Su pr em e Co ur t un reas on ab ly ap pl ie d S tri ck la nd he re. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly

reco gn iz ed th at "fa il in g to pr es en t wit ne ss es pr om is ed in an op en in g is no t al way s an

erro r of a co ns ti tu ti on al di m en si on ." W il li am s v . Bowe rs ox , 34 0 F .3d 66 7, 67 1– 72

(8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). In Wi l li am s

, de fen se co un se l ch an ge d st rat eg y aft er th e st at e ha d

cal le d m os t of th e an ti ci pa te d de fen se wit ne ss es an d co un se l b e l i e v e d he ha d "b eat

th e st at e's cas e th ro ug h hi s cro ss -ex am in at i o n o f t h e st at e's wit ne ss es ." Id

. at 66 9

(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. In si m il ar fas hi on

, th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t

d e te rm in ed he re th at de fen se co un se l's ch an ge in st rat eg y was reas on ab le in pa rt

be cau se he ha d weig he d th e ris ks of th e de fen da nt n o t t e s t i f yi ng "i n li gh t of ne w

in fo rm a t i on —t he st ren gt h of th e St at e's cas e—t ha t he [h ad ] no t kn ow[ n] at th e

be gi nn in g o f tr ia l." Bah tu oh , 84 0 N.W. 2d at 8 17

.

W e ha ve no t y et ha d reas on to ap pl y W il li am s to a cas e in whi ch th e pr om is ed

,

bu t m is si ng

, wit ne ss was th e de fen da nt

. Oth er cou rts ha ve di ffer ed on whe th er it is

reas on ab le to ad vi se a de fen da nt no t to te st ify aft er ha vi ng pr om is ed th e te s t i m on y

in op en in g st at em en ts

. Co m pa re Oub er v. Gua rin o

, 29 3 F.3 d 19

, 27 –3 2 (1 st Ci r.

20 0 2 ) (co nc lu di ng de fen se co un se l's ad vi ce was co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fic ie nt ), an d

W il li am s v. W oo df

or d

, 85 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 54

, 11 62 –6 5 (E. D

. Cal

. 20 12 ) (s am e),

w i t h Y a n cey v. Hall

, 23 7 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 8, 13 3– 35 (D. Mas s. 20 02 ) (co nc lu di n g

de fen se co un se l's ad vi ce was no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fic ie nt ), an d Fran ci s v. St at e

, 18 3

S.W .3d 28 8, 30 1– 05 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 06 ) (s am e). "Th is di ve rs it y of op in io n al on e"

su gg es ts th at th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t di d no t un reas on ab ly ap pl y St ric kl an d in

res pe ct to Bah tu oh 's c as e. See W il li am s , 34 0 F .3d at 6 72

.

-6

-Fu rth erm or e, ev en co ur ts th at ha ve co nc lu de d th at d e f e n s e c ou ns el pr ov id ed

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce by ad vi si ng a de fen da nt no t to te st ify aft er h a vi ng pr om is ed

ot he rwis e ha v e s u g g e s t e d th at th ere m ay be in st an ces in whi ch su ch a ch an ge in

st rat eg y co ul d be reas on ab le

. In Oub er v. Gua rin o

, a cas e rel ie d on by Bah tu oh

, th e

co ur t ob se rv ed th at "u ne xp ect ed de ve lo pm en ts so m et im es m ay warra nt c h a n g e s in

pr ev io us ly an no un ced tri al st rat eg ie s." 29 3 F.3 d at 29

. Th a t c ou rt ne ve rth el es s

co nc lu de d th at th ere ha d be en n o s u c h u ne xp ect ed de ve lo pm en ts du rin g th e

pe ti ti on er's tri al (a th ird at te m pt fo ll o w in g two m is tri al s du e to hu ng juri es ). Id

.

Ano th er co ur t si m il arl y gr an te d ha be as rel ie f aft er co nc lu di ng th at de fen se co un se l's

"fa il ur e to pr es en t th e pr om is ed te st im on y [co ul d no t] be ch al ke d up to un fo res eeab le

ev en ts ." Mad rig al v. Yat es , 66 2 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 16 2, 1 18 4 (C .D. Cal. 2 00 9)

.

As th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t o b se rv ed

, de fen se co un se l's ch an ge in

st rat eg y in th is cas e was ba se d on un ex pe ct ed de ve lo pm en t s

. Thro ug h bo th cro ss

ex am in at io n of

th e g ov ern m en t's wit ne ss es an d t he read in g of Bah tu oh 's gran d jury

te st im on y

, th e go ve rn m en t's cas e in ch ie f ha d pr ov id e d d e f e n s e co un se l wit h an

op po rtu ni ty to ex po se th e jury to m os t of t h e e v i d e n c e he ha d pr om is ed du rin g

op en in g st at em en ts

, na m el y

, th at Bah tu oh ha d a pr ee xis tin g po si ti ve rel at io ns hi p wit h

P a r ke r an d was un aware th at McGe e ha d a gu n in hi s car. Defen se co un se l al s o

be li ev ed th at th e st at e h a d f a i l ed to pr ov e it s cas e (a be li ef th at pr ov ed pa rti al ly

co rrec t).

Giv en th at th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered th es e tri al de ve lo pm en ts

i n or de r to as se ss th e reas on ab le ne ss of de fen se co un se l's ch an ge in st rat eg y, 2 w e

2 T h e M i n n e s o t a S u p re m e C o u

rt s e e m e d t o s u g g e s t t

h a t b e c a u s e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l 's

d e c i s i o n w a s " s t

ra t e g i c " i t m u s t h a v e b e e n re a s o n a

b l e

, s e e B a

h t u o h

, 8 4 0 N

. W

. 2 d a

t 8 1 8

n

. 3

, w h i c h w o u l d h a

v e b e e n c o n

t ra ry t o S t ri c k l a n d 's c o m m a n d t h a t a l t h o u g h s t ra t e g i c

d e c i s i o n a re " v i rt u a l l y u n c h a l l e n g e a

b l e

, " t h e y a re n o t c o m p l e t e l y u n c h a l l e n g e a

b l e

, s e e

S t ri c k l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. a

t 6 9 0

– 9 1

. O n re v i e w i n g t

h e M i n n e s o t a S u p re m e C o u

rt 's d e c i s i o n

a s a w h o l e

, h o w e v e r, i t i s c l e a

r t h a t t h e c o u rt d i d a c t u a l l y a n a l y z e t h e re a s o n a

b l e n e s s o f

-7

-de cl in e to co nc lu de th at th e co ur t's ap pl ic at io n of St ric kl an d w a s ob jecti ve ly

un reas on ab le . W e th eref or e d efer to th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's ap pl ic at io n o f

th e de fic ie nc y el em en t in St ric kl an d 's te st un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), an d n eed no t

de te rm in e whe th er t ha t d efi ci en cy pre jud ic ed Bah tu oh

.

B.

Bah tu oh als o a rg ue s t ha t t he Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's de ci si on was ba se d

on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of t h e fact s. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s th at th e

Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t un reas on ab ly de t e r mi n ed (1 ) th at th e weak ne ss es in th e

st at e's cas e were un fo res een to de fen se co un se l an d (2 ) th at de fen se co un se l weig he d

th e ris ks of Bah tu oh no t te st ifyin g whe n he ad vi se d hi m no t to ta ke th e st an d. A st at e

co ur t de ci si on is ba se d on an un reas on ab l e d e t e r m in at io n of th e fact s on ly if th e

"co u r t ' s pr es um

pt iv el y co rrec t fact ua l fin di ng s do no t en joy su pp or t in th e reco rd ."

Eve ns ta d v. Carl so n

, 47 0 F.3 d 77 7, 78 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Here, th ere is reco rd su pp or t

fo r th e st at e co ur t's fact ua l fi nd in gs

.

Fi rs t, th ere is reco rd su pp or t fo r it s co nc lu si on th at th e ex te nt of th e weak ne ss es

in th e st at e's cas e was un fo res een to de fen se co un se l. Dur in g cro ss ex am in at io n of

a st at e wit ne ss

, fo r ex am pl e, de fen se co un se l was ab le to es ta bl is h th at Par k e r ha d

si gn al ed to ward Bah tu oh

, co ns is te nt wit h Bah tu oh ' s gr an d jury te st im on y

. Thi s

te st im on y su gg es te d th at Park er ha d no reas on to fear Bah tu oh

, an d th at th e two were

acq ua in ta nc es

. D e f

e n s e c o u ns el al so to ld th e jury th at he no lo ng er ha d to pu t

Bah tu oh on th e st an d aft er th e pr os ecu ti on in tro du ced Bah tu oh ' s g r a n d jury

te st im on y

, "wh ic h he ga ve un de r oa th

. . . [an d] ex on erat e[d ] hi m ." Fi na ll y

, Bah tu oh

te st ifi ed at th e po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng th at de fen se co un se l to ld Bah tu oh th at he ha d

de ci de d to ch an ge st rat eg y an d no t ha ve hi m te st ify be cau se "t he St at e di d no t pr ov e

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l 's s t ra t e g i c d e c i s i o n t o a d

v i s e B a h t u o h n o t t o t e s t i f

y

. T h e c o u

rt t h e re f o re

d i d n o t i m p e rm i s s i b l y t re a t t h a t d e c i s i o n a s u

n re v i e w a b l e

.

-8

-th ei r cas e an d [Bah tu oh ] won ." Co un se l's st at em en ts to th e jury an d Bah tu oh su pp or t

th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at th e weak ne ss es in th e st at e's cas e

ha d be en un fo res een by hi m

. Defen se co un se l's pr ed ic ti on ab ou t th e st ren gt h of th e

st at e's cas e pr ov ed to be pa rti al ly co rrec t si nc e th e jury acq ui tt ed Bah tu oh of th e m os t

se rio us ch arg ed off

en se (fi rs t d eg ree p rem ed it at ed m ur de r).

The re is al so reco rd su pp or t fo r th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's de te rm in at io n

th at de fen se co un se l weig he d th e ris ks if Bah t u o h w e r e no t to te st ify. Dur in g th e

co ll oq uy in whi ch Bah tu oh in fo rm ed th e co ur t of hi s de ci si on

, de fen se co un se l st at ed

th at he an d Bah tu oh ha d di sc us se d a de fen da nt 's rig ht to te st ify on "s ev eral oc cas io ns "

an d th e "p ro s an d co ns " of waiv in g th at rig ht

. Bah tu oh di d no t in di cat e th at de fen se

co un se l's rep res en ta ti on was in accu rat e; rat he r, he affi rm at ive ly ag re ed w ith c ou ns el 's

c h a r a c t e riz at io n of th ei r pr io r co nv ers at io ns

. Fu rth er, Bah tu oh fai le d to de ve lo p a

reco rd be fo re th e st at e co ur t th at wou ld co m pe l a co nt rary fact ua l fin di ng

, as sh own

in pa rt by hi s de ci si on no t to cal l de fen se co un se l as a wit ne ss to ex pl ai n hi s de ci si on

du rin g th e po st co nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. The Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's

de te rm in at io n th at co un se l di d weig h th e ris ks of Bah tu oh no t te st ifyin g was th eref or e

no t ba se d on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of the fact s and is en ti tl ed to de fere nc e

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d)

.

III.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of Bah tu oh 's 28 U.S.C.

§ 2 25 4 h ab eas pe ti ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-