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

7-1-2009 

# Thom a s v . H orn
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 n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-9006

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 no va . 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 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 Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 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 Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t 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

" Thom as v . H or n " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 904. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/904P 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



### ______________________ Nos

. 05- 9006 & 05- 9008

______________________ BR I A N TH O M A S, A ppel l anti n N o. 05- 9006

v. M A R T I N H O R N , C om m i s s i oner , Penns y l vani a D epart m ent of C or r ect i ons ; D O N A L D T

. V A U G H N , Super i nt endentof t he St a t e Cor r e c t i on a l I ns t i tut i on a tG r a t e r fo r d; J O SEPH P. M A Z U R K I E W I C Z , Super i nt endentof t he St at e C or r ect i onal I n s t i tu t i o n a tRo c k v i e w; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF

PHI LAD ELPHI A C OU NTY

A ppel l ant s i n N o. 05- 9008

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 i s t r i ctC our tN o. 00- cv- 803 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e L oui s H

. Pol l ak

### 2 A r gued M ay1, 2009 B e f o re : M C K E E , S M IT H , a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: J ul y1, 2009) M aur een K earneyR ow l ey B i l l yH

. N ol as ( A r gued) V i ct orA br eu D avi d W y coff Feder al C om m uni t yD efe nderO ffi ce f ort he East ern D i s t r i ct o f P e n n sy lv a n ia Sui t e 545 W es t

— T he C ur t i s B ui l di ng 601 W al nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106

A t t or neys f

orB r i an Thom as D avi d C ur t i s G l ebe ( A r gued) T hom as W

. D ol genos R o n ald E isen b erg A r nol d H

. G or don L ynne A br aham R o b e rt M . F a lin T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107

A t t or neys f

orMar t i n H

or n, D onald V

aughn, Jos eph M

az ur ki ew i cz, and the D is tr i ct A t t or ney o f P h ila d e lp h ia C o u n ty

### W e r e fe r t o Mart i n Horn, Do na l d Vaughn, J os e ph 1 

### M azurk iew icz, an dt

heDi s t ri c t At tor ney o f P h ilad elp h ia C o unty co llectiv ely

as th e “C o mm o nw ealth .”

3 OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge.
I n 1986, B r i an Thom as w as convi ct ed in t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Phi l adel phi a of murde ri n t he fi r s tdegr ee, bur gl ary , i nvol unt arydevi at e s exual i nt er cour s e, and r ape. T he j ur ys ent ence d hi m t o death. T hom as w as uns ucce s s ful on di r ect a p p e a l, s ee C om m onw eal th v. Thom as , 561 A

. 2d 699 ( Pa. 1989) (he reina fter “ T

ho m as I ” ), an d in h is s tate c o u rt p e tit io n f o r p o stc o n v ic tio n re lie f

, s ee C om m onw eal th v. Thom as , 744 A

. 2d 713 (P a. 20 0 0 ) (he reina ft e r “ T h o m a s II ”)

. T hom as t hen pet i t i oned t he D i s t r i ct C our tforhabea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254. T ho m as v. B eard , 388 F. Supp. 2d 4 89 ( E

. D

. Pa. 2005) (he reina fter “ T

h o m a s III

”)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed Thom as s ent enci ng r el i ef bas ed on hi s t r i al couns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s , but d e n ie d h is g u ilt- p h a s e c la im s . Id

. at536. B ot h T hom as and the C o m m o n w e a lth a p p e a led . F o r th e re a so n s tha t f o llo w , w e w ill 1 a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s g u ilt -p h a se d e ter m in a tio n s, b u t w ill vaca t e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’ s or derfors ent enci ng r el i ef, and

### 4 r e m a n d f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n t , i f a n y, o f trial c o u n se l’s p re -se n ten c in g in v e stig a ti v e e f f o rts to o b tain m i t i gat i on evi dence

. I.
O n A ugus t9, 1985, one of Li nda J ohns on’ s r oom m at es w alke d into the irP h il ad elph ia ap artm en t and fo u n d Jo h n so n ’s d e a d b o d yl y i n g f

a c e - d o wn o n a b r o k e n b o x - s p r i n g i n h e rr o o m. J ohns on’ s ey es and fa ce w er e s w ol l en, and hern o se an d r i ght t empl e w er e bl ee d ing

. S he had a bi t e mar k on herchee k and brui ses on her arm s and thi gh s. S he w as nake d from t he w ai st d o w n , a n d b lo o d w a s s e e p in g f ro m h e r v a g in a a n d re c tu m . A blood-enc rust ed crut ch w as fou nd near her bod y . Itw as al so det er m i ned thata t el evi s i on s etand a c an cont ai ni ng about tw e n ty -n in e d o llars in c h a n g e w e re m iss in g f ro m th e a p a rtm e n t.
A n aut ops y of J ohns on r evea l ed t hat s he ha d thr ee fr actur ed r i bs and a tw enty - t hr ee i nch t eari ns i de herbodyt hat r eac hed fr om hervagi na t o herches tcavi t y . A s hi r tal s o had been i ns er t ed i nt o her rec tum , t hr ough heri nt es t i nal w al l , and i nt o herabdomi nal cavi t y w i t h a bl unt i ns t rum ent w hi l e s he w as s t i l l al i ve. A ddi t i onal l y , s per m w as found i ns i de hervagi na. T hr ee day s aft er t he di s covery of J ohns on’ s b o d y , t he C om m onw eal t h arr es t ed Thom as forher r ape and murde r , and for bur gl ar i zi ng her apart m ent
. A t t r i al , t hr ee w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed t hatt heyhad s een T hom as and Johns on t ogether at or nearher

### 5 ap a r t me n t wi t h i n h o u r s o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f h e r b o d y . T he C om m o nw eal t h al s o i nt r oduced medi cal evi dence t hat : t he s p e r m f o u n d i n J o h n s o n ’ s v a g i n a wa s d e p o s i t e d a r o u n d t h e t i me t hatT hom as and Johns on w er e l as ts een t ogether ; t he s per m w as depos i t ed bya non- s ecr et or( one w ho does not s ecr et e tr ace s of bl ood i n bodi l yemi s s i ons); T hom as w as a non- s ecr et or ; bl ood f o u n d o n T h o m a s’ b o x e r sh o rts w a s h u m a n b lo o d ; an d th e b ite m ar k on J ohns on’ s chee k m at ched T hom as ’ t eeth. Fi nal l y , t he C o m m o n w e a lth in tro d u c e d e v id e n c e th a t T h o m a s w a s in pos s es s i on of bot h t he mi s s i ng t el evi s i on and the t w enty - ni ne dol l ar s i n change

. O n February6, 1986, t he j ur y fo u n d T hom as gui l t yof m ur deri n the fi r s tdegr ee, r ape, i nvol unt arydevi at e s exual i nt er cour s e, and bur gl ary . D ur i ng t he pena l ty p h as e, w hi ch began l at ert hatday , t he C o m m onw eal t h offe r ed evi dence of t hr ee a ggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o s upp o r ti t s r eques tfort he d e a t h p e n a l t y: 1 ) k i l l i n g w h i l e p e r p e t r a t i n g a n o th e rf e l o n y, namel yr ape; 2) ki l l i ng by m eans of t or tur e; and 3) a s i gni fi cant h is to ry o f

v io le n t f e lo n yc o n v ic tio n s . See 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 9711( d) ( 6) , ( 8) , ( 9)

. T he C om m on w eal t h r el i ed on tr i al evi dence al r eadypr es ent ed t o es t abl i s h t he fi r s tt w o aggr avat i ng c irc u m sta n c e s. T o e sta b lish th e th ird , the C o m m o n w e a lth offe r ed evi dence of Thom as ’ 1978 co n v i ct i on forfel oni ous aggr avat ed as s aul tand i ndece ntas s aul ton a thr ee- y earol d, w hi ch ca us ed i nj ur i es t o t he chi l d’ s r ectum and i nt es t i nes , and T hom as ’ 1 9 84 convi ct i on forcr i m i nal t r es pas s w her e Thom as unl aw ful l yent er ed a ne i ghbor ’ s bedr oom w h il e s he w as

### 6 s l eepi ng. A t the cl ose of

t he C om m on w eal t h’s penalty -phase ev iden ce , T h o m as’ co u rt -ap p o inted co u n sel i n fo rm ed the c o u rt t hatT hom as w oul d notbe pr es ent i ng anym i t i gat i ng evi dence

. T he courtdet er m i ned that T hom as s houl d be col l oqui ed r egar di ng t he dec i s i on t o pr es entno m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. A ft er t hi s col l oquy , T hom as , t hr ough hi s couns el , decl i ned the C om m onw eal t h’ s offe r t o s t i pul at e t o hi s age and t o t he fa ctt hat he gr aduat ed fr om hi gh s chool

. A s a r es ul t , T hom as pr es ent ed n o e v id e n c e o f

m iti g a ti n g c irc u m sta n c e s d u rin g th e p e n a lty phas e. N onethel es s , i n i t s penal t y - phas e char ge t o t he j ur y , t he c o u rt re c ited a ll th e m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s li ste d in Penns y l vani a’ s s ent enci ng s t atut e forf i r s t
- d e g r e e mur der , 42 Pa. C ons . St at
. § 9711( e) , and t ol d t he j ur yt hat“y ou m aycons i der a n y th in g a s a m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e .”
T he j ur yfound t he thr ee pr oposed aggr avat i ng c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d n o m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A c c o r d i n g l y, T hom as w as s ent ence d to d eat h on t he fi r s t
- degr ee mur der c o n v ictio n a n d to c o n se c u tiv e ter m s o f im p riso n m e n t o f

u p to fi ft yy ear s fort he bur gl ary , r ape, and i nvol unt arydevi at e s exual i nter cou rs e con vict i on s. T h o m as, repr esent ed b ynew cou rt -appoint ed ap pell ate couns el , uns ucce s s ful l ychal l enged hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence o n d ir e c t a p p e a l to th e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt
. T ho m as I, 561 A

. 2d at710. H i s s ubs equent p eti t i on forr el i ef unde r

### Th e Dis tric t Court al so dete rmined that

coun sel’ s 2



### “ i nc ohe r e nt ” c l os i ng ar gum e nt at s e nt e nc i ng e xa c e r

bat e d the p rej u d ice cau sedb y

co un sel’s o th er d ef

icien t p erf

o rm an ces. Th om as II

I , 3 8 8 F. Supp . 2d at 511 –5 13 . Altho ug h w e a gree w ithth e D istrict C o urt th at “co un s e l ’ s c lo sin g w as, at b est, incohere nt and, at

wo rs t, in the s er

vice of the prose cuti on ’s c ont e nti onthat

the jury s ho ul d s e l e c t

de ath r ather

than l i fe im p riso nm en t” an dth at “[ c] o un sel w h o lly f ailed inh is duty

to pres ent a cl osing argum ent helpf

ul to Th om as ,” id . at 5 1 3 , it do es n o t app ear that Tho m as ra is ed thes e c la im s i n h is habeas 7 P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s P o st-C o n v ictio n R e lief A c t, 42 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 9541 et
. s eq. (h e re in a f te r “ P C R A ” ), w a s a ls o d e n ie d

. Thom as II, 7 4 4 A

. 2 d at 7 1 7

. T h o m as th en p eti ti o n ed the D istri ct C o u rt f o r h a b e a s r e l i e f p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4 , r a i s i n g t w e n t yth re e g ro u n d s f

o r r e lie f

. T

h o m a s III

, 388 F. Supp. 2d at495–96 & n .1 . T h e D istric t C o u r t d e n ie d T h o m a s’ p e tit io n a s to h is g u ilt- p h a s e c la im s . Id

. at536. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , how ever, det er m i ned that T hom as ’ t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve at sen tenc ing u n d er Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U

. S. 6 68 ( 1984 ), b eca us e couns el fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e and pr es ent m itig a tin g e v id e n c e o f T h o m a s ’ m e n ta l h e a lth

. T h o m a s III

, 388 F. Supp. 2d at505–11. T he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o det er m i ned that T h o m a s d id n o t k n o w in g lya n d in tellig e n tlyw a iv e h is rig h t to pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence beca us e the n atur e of the pr ocee di ngs w er e notadequa t el yexpl ai ned t o h im , so t he purpor t ed w ai vercoul d notcur e the pr ej udi ce r es u lt ing f r om c o u n s e l’ s d e f

ic ie n c ie s . Id

. at 513–16. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ct 2

### p etitio n , se e id

. at 4 9 5

– 9 6 , 4 9 8 . T h eref o re, w e w ill n o t ad dress c ouns e l ’ s c l os i ngar gum e nt i n o ur r e vi e w. I n l i ght of i t s de c i s i on t o va c at e Thom a s’ sen tenc e on 3 

### the bas is of

Th om as ’ Str i c k

land cl ai m , the Distri ct

Co urt d ismissed , w ith o ut p rej u d ice, tw o o f T h o m as’ o th er claim s: per se ineffecti ve as sist ance of coun se l und er Un ited Statesv. C ro n ic , 466 U. S. 648 ( 1984) , and jury bi a s at s e nt e nc i ng. 388 F. Supp. 2d at

516, 528–30. 8 C o u rt v a c a te d T h o m a s ’ d e a th s e n te n c e . Id

. at536. 3
T h o m as f

il ed a ti m elyap p ea l, a n d the D istri ct C o u rt i ssued a cert i fi cat e of app eal abil i t y for t hree of T ho m as’ cl ai m s. T he C om m onw eal t h fi l ed a c r os s - appea l al le gi ng thatt he D istric t C o u rt’s d e c is io n to v a c a te T h o m a s’ s e n ten c e w a s in erro r. II.
T he D i s t r i ctC our th ad jur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. §§ 2241 and 2254, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U

. S. C

. §§ 12 91 and 22 53

. S i nce the D i stri ctC ou rtrul ed o n T ho m as’ h a b e a s p e tit io n w ith o u t a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g , o u r re v iew o f its d e c is io n is p le n a ry. See M ars hal l v. Hendr i cks , 307 F. 3d 36, 50 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). T his m eans that w e revi ew t he st a te c ou rt s’ d eterm ination s u n d er the sam e stan d ard th a t the D istri ct C o u rt w a s re q u ir e d to a p p ly. Id

.

### 9 U nder t he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ct o f 1 9 9 6 (“A E D P A ”), “f

ed era l cou rt s are to rev iew a state c o u rt ’s d e ter m in a tio n s o n th e m e rits o n lyto a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e sta te cour tr eached a deci s i on t hatw as ‘ contr aryt o’ ori nvol ved an ‘un rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n ’ of clea rl yest abl i s hed S u p rem e C o u rt law , o r if

a d e c isio n w a s b a se d o n a n ‘u n re a so n a b le d e te rm in a tio n ’ o f t h e f

a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d .” Fahy v. H

orn , 516 F. 3d 169, 189 n. 20 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. B utw hen “the s t at e courthas notr eac hed t he m er i t s of a c l ai m t her eaf t er pr es ent ed t o a fe der al habea s cour t , the def er en ti al s t andar ds pr ovi ded by A E D PA

. . . do not appl y . ” App elv. H orn , 250 F. 3d 203, 210 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. “I n s uch an i ns t ance , t he fe der al habea s cour t m u st c o n ducta de novo r evi ew overpur e l egal q u e stio n s a n d m ix e d q u e stio n s o f law a n d f a c t, as a c o u rt w o u ld have done pr i ort o t he en ac tm entof A E D PA

. ” Id . A sta te c o u rt’s f a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s, h o w e v e r, “a re still p re su m e d to be corr ect , r ebut t abl e upon a s how i ng of cl earand conv i nci ng evi dence

. ” Id

. III

. W e wi l l f

i r s t a d d r e s s t h e t h r e e c l a i ms b e f o r e us on T h o m a s’ a p p e a l: 1 ) th e trial c o u rt’s “ r e a so n a b le d o u b t” i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur yw as uncons t i tut i onal ; 2) t he C om m onw eal t h’ s cl os i ng ar gum entats ent enci n g w as uncons t i tut i onal , and Thom as ’ couns el w as i neff ect i ve fornot obj ect i ng t o i t ; and 3) Thom as ’ couns el w as i neff ect i ve for f a i l i n g t o l i f

e - q u a l i f y t h e j u r y.

### 10 A.
A tt he ou t s e t , t he pa r t i e s c on t e s tw he t he rA ED PA defe rence pu rsu a n tt o S ect i on 22 54 (d) app l i es t o T ho m as’ cl ai m s . Sect i on 2254( d) “appl i es onl yt o claim s al r eady

‘ adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs . ’ ” Appel , 2 5 0 F

. 3 d a t2 1 0 ( q u o t i n g 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) )

. He r e , t h e P CRA cour trul ed on t he m er i t s of t w o of Thom as ’ cl ai m s

— hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent and l i fe- qual i fi cat i on cl ai m s

— but di d notaddr es s t he t h i r d

— h i s o b

j e c t i o n t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e d o u b ti n s t r u c t i o n . On appea l , t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdi s m i s s ed al l t hr ee cl ai m s as w ai ved b e c ause t heyw ere not rai sed i n T ho m as’ a m e n d e d P C R A p e titio n . See T h o m a s II, 744 A

. 2d at715 n. 4. T he C om m onw eal t h ar gues t hatt he PC R A cour t ’ s deci s i on on the m erit s is an “ a d

ju d ic at[ion ] on the m erit s in S tat e c o u rt p r o c e e d i n g s , ” wh i c h r e n d e r s S e c t i o n 2 2 5 4 ( d ) a p p l i c a b l e t o t wo of Th o ma s ’ c l a i ms . Th o ma s , h o wev e r , c o n t e n d s t h a tt he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s det er m i nat i on s uper cede s t he PC R A cour t ’ s deci s i on fort he purpos es of det er m i ni ng w hether A E D PA defe r ence i s due. A ccor di ngl y , w e mustdeci de w h e th e r a c laim h a s b e e n “ a d ju d ic a ted o n th e m e rits in S tate c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s” w h e n a lo w e r sta te c o u rt d e c id e d th e c laim o n its m e rits, b u t th e re v iew in g sta te c o u rt re so lv e d th e c laim enti rel yon proced ural groun ds.
T he Second Ci r cui thas pr o v ided a t extual anal y s i s of “a d jud icated o n the m erit s” a s u sed in S ec ti o n 2 2 5 4 (d):

### 11 W hen C ongr es s us es a t erm o f ar ts uch as

“ a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits,” w e p re su m e th a t it sp eaks consi st entl y w i t h th e c o m m o n ly u n d e rs to o d m e a n in g o f

th is te rm . See [ W

al t ers v. Metr o. E duc. E nt ers . , I nc. , 51 9 U

. S. 202, 207 (1 9 9 7 )]. “ A d

ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits ” h a s a w e ll s et t l ed meani ng: a dec i s i on fi nal l yr es ol ving t he p a rti es’ cl ai m s, w i t h res j ud i cat a effect, t hat i s base d on t he s ubs t ance of t he cl ai m advanc ed, ra th e r t h a n o n a p ro c e d u ra l, o r o th e r, g ro u n d

. See e. g. , Sem t ek I

nt ’ l , I nc. v. Lockhee d Mar t i n C or p. , 531 U

. S. 497.

. . ( 2001) ( not i ng one def i ni t i on of an “on the mer i t s ” adj udi cati o n as “one that actuall ypas s es di r ect l yon t he s ubs t ance of a par t ic ul arcl ai m befor e the court ”) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte ra tio n s o m i tte d ). See al s o, e. g. , B l ack’s L a w D ict i on ary 42 ( 7t h ed. 1999) ( adj udi cat i on: “1. T he lega l pr oces s of r e so lv in g a d isp u te; th e p ro c e ss o f ju d icia lly d e c i d i n g a c a s e . 2

. J u d g me n t
. ” ; a d j u d i c a t e : “ 1

. To ru le u p o n ju d icia lly . 2 . A d ju d g e .”); W

eb ster’s T hir d N ew Int ’l D i ct i on ary 27 ( 1993) ( adj udi cat e: “t o s et t l e fi nal l y( t he r i ght s and dut i es of t he par t i es t o a courtcas e) on t he mer i t s of i s s ues r ai s ed; ent eron t h e rec o r ds of a c our t( a fi nal jud g m en t, o rde r, o r de cre e o f se n tenc e)” ). Sel l an v. Kuhlm an , 2 6 1 F

. 3 d 3 0 3 , 3 1 1 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). In R om pil l a v. H

orn , 3 5 5 F .3 d 2 3 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), r ev’ d on other g r o u n d s s u b n o m. R om

pil l a v. B eard , 5 4 5 U. S

. 3 7 4 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , we

### 12 quot ed w i t h appr oval t he S ec o n d C i r cui t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of “adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s . ” Id

. at 247 ( quot i ng Sel l an , 261 F. 3d a t 3 1 1 ). O th e r c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls h a v e d o n e s o a s w e ll. See T e ti v. B ender , 5 0 7 F .3 d 5 0 , 5 6

– 5 7 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Lam ber tv. B lo d g e tt , 3 9 3 F .3 d 9 4 3 , 9 6 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); see al so Muth v. Fr ank , 4 1 2 F .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Schoenbe r gerv. R u s s e ll , 2 9 0 F

. 3 d 8 3 1 , 8 4 0 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (K eit h , J ., co n cu rri n g ).
W e re it era te tod ay o u r ap p rov al o f t h e S ec o n d C ir cu it ’s i nt erpr et at i on of “adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s . ” Fort he purpos es o f S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 (d ), a c laim h a s b e e n “ a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs ” w hen a s t at e courthas m ade a deci s i on t hat1) fi nal l yr es ol ves t he cl aim , and 2) r es ol ves t he c laim o n th e b a sis o f its su b sta n c e , ra th e r th a n o n a p ro c e d u ra l, o r o th e r, g ro u n d

. See R o m p illa , 355 F. 3d at247 ( quot i ng Sel l an , 2 6 1 F .3 d a t 3 1 1 ); see al so L am bert , 3 9 3 F .3 d a t 9 6 9 (“ [ A ] sta te has ‘ adj udi cat ed’ a pet i t i oner ’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m ‘ on t he m er i t s ’ forpurp os es of § 2254( d) w hen i thas deci ded the pet i t i oner ’ s r i ghtt o pos tconvi ct i on r el i ef on the b asis of t he s ubs t ance of t he cons t i tut i onal cl ai m advanc ed, r athert han den y i ng t he cl ai m on t he basi s of a proced ural or othe r ru le p re c lu d in g sta te c o u rt re v iew o f th e m e rits.”) ; Sel l an , 261 F. 3d at 31 2 (“F o r the p u rpo ses o f A E D P A d ef ere n ce , a state c o u rt ‘a d ju d ica te[ s]’ a sta te p riso n e r’s f e d e ra l cla im o n th e m e rits w hen i t( 1) di s pos es of t he cl ai m ‘ on t he m er i t s , ’ and ( 2) r educe s it s d ispo sit ion to jud g m en t. ”).

### 13 W e agr ee w i t h t he C om m onw eal t h t hatan “a dj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s ” ca n occur atanyl evel of s t at e court
. U nl i ke other s t atut es t hataddr es s fede r al r evi ew of s t at e courtdeci s i ons , t he pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 2254( d) does nots peci fyt hatt he

“ a d ju d ica tio n o n th e m e rits” b e f ro m a n yp a rticu lar sta te c o u rt. C om pa re 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4 (d) w ith 28 U

. S. C

. § 1257( a) ( “Fi nal j ud gm ents or decrees re n d e re d b y th e h ig h e st co u rt of a S ta te in w hi ch a dec is i on could be had , ma yb e r e v i e we d b y t h e S u p r e me C o u rt b yw rit o f

c e rtio ra ri . .

. . ” (e m p h a s is a d d e d )). B u t to q u ali fyas a n “a d

jud icati o n o n the m erit s, ” the stat e c o u rt deci s i on m us tfi nal l yr es ol ve the cl ai m . T hi s m eans thatt he sta te c o u rt’s re so lu tio n o f th e c laim m u st h a v e p re c lu siv e e f f e c t. See R o m p illa , 355 F. 3d at247 ( quot i ng Sel l an , 2 6 1 F

. 3 d at 31 1 ). Ap p l y i n g t h i s ru l e t o t h e s t a t e c o u r td e c i s i o n s h e r e , we se e n o “ a d

ju d ica tio n o n th e m e rits.” H e re , the P e n n s y lv a n ia S up rem e C ou rtdecided T ho m as’ cl ai m s on p urel yproced u ra l, n o ts u b s t a n t i v e , g r o u n d s . Th i s d e c i s i o n s t r i p p e d t h e P CRA cour t ’ s s u bs t ant i ve det er m i nat i on of Thom as ’ cl ai m s of p re c lu s iv e e f

f e c t. See R es t at ement ( Second) of J udgm ent s § 27 cmt
. o ( 1982) ( “I f t he j udgm entof t he cour tof fi r s ti ns t ance w as bas ed on a det er m i nat i on of t w o i s s ues , ei t her of w hi ch s t andi ng i ndepende nt l yw oul d be s uffi ci entt o s uppor t t he r es ul t
. . . [and] [i]f t he appe l l at e courtuphol ds one of thes e det er m i nat i ons as su f f icie n t an d re f

u se s to c o n sid e r w h e th e r o r n o t th e o th e r is s uffi ci entand ac cor di ngl yaff i r m s t h e jud gm ent , t he j udgm ent i s concl us i ve as t o t he fi r s t det er m i nat i on. ”) ; 18A C har l es A l an W ri g h t , A rt h u r R . M ille r & E d w a rd H . C o o p e r, Feder al

### 14 P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 4 4 3 2 (2 d e d . 2 0 0 2 ) (“ If th e a p p e llate co u rtterm inates th e c a s e b y fin al ruli n g s as to so m e m att ers onl y , pr ecl us i on i s l i m i t ed t o t he mat t er s actual l yr es ol ved byt he app el l at e cou rt
. . . . ” ); see al s o, e. g. , S u n ris e C o rp . o f M y rtle B each v

. C i t

y of M yr t l e Beach , 4 2 0 F

. 3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 7

– 2 8 (4th C ir

. 2005) ( hol di n g that, al t hough t he tr i al cour tr ever s ed an a d m in is tr a tiv e d e te rm in a tio n o n , i nterali a , C ons t i tut i onal g r o u n d s , r e s j u d i c a t a d i d n o ta p p l yt o t h e Co n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms beca us e the appe l l at e courtaff i r m ed the t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on w ith o u t r e a c h in g th e C o n stitu tio n a l issu e s). T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt’s p ro c e d u re -b a se d d e c isio n re m a in s a s th e o n ly re so lu tio n o f T h o m a s’ c laim s w ith p re c lu siv e e f f e c t. A ccor di ngl y , t her e has been n o “adj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s , ” and A E D P A d e f

e re n c e is n o t d u e . See a l so Li egakos v. C ooke , 106 F .3 d 1 3 8 1 , 1 3 8 5 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (n o tin g th a t S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 (d ) d id notappl y t o cl ai m s deci ded on t he mer i t s i n s t at e tr i al cour t , but d isp o se d o f o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s in th e sta te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls beca us e “the di s pos i t i on of t he last sta t e courtt o i s s ue an opi ni on det er m i nes w hethert he s t at e has i nvoked a gro und of for fei tur e” ( ci t i ng Y

l s tv. N unnem aker , 5 0 1 U

. S

. 7 9 7 (19 9 1 )))

. T he C om m onw eal t h ar gues t hat t he r es ul tw e r eac h t oday i s contr aryt o ourdeci s i on i n N ar a v. Fr ank , 488 F. 3d 187 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. I ti s not
. I n N ara , t he l ow ers t at e courtdeci ded the m e rits o f th e p e tit io n e r’s in c o m p e ten c y c laim a n d th e a p p e llate cou rtsubsequ entl yreverse d th is d e c isio n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s. Id

. at 19 1– 92

. N on et heles s, w e rem arked that t he l ow er state c o u r t“ p l a i n l y d id

re a c h the m e rits o f

N a ra ’s in c o m p e ten c yc laim

### 15 . . . . ” Id

. at 201. T hi s s t at ement , how ever , w as notdi r ect ed at anySect i on 2254( d) anal y s i s ; i tw as m ade i n t he cont extof det er m i ni ng w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yacc or ded a pr es um pt i on of corr ectnes s pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( e) ( 1) to th e f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s o f th e lo w e r st a te c o u rt
. Id

. at200. A s w e po i nted out, “t he § 22 54 (e) (1) presum pti on of co rr ect ness appl i es r egar dl es s of w hethert her e has been a n ‘ adj udi cat i on on t he mer i ts’ fo r purpos es of § 2254( d)

. ” Id

. at20 0– 01

. A s a r es ul t , t he N

ara panel m ade no rul i ng on w hethert he l ow er cour t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n t h e me r i t s was a n “ a d j u d i c a t i o n o n t he me r i t s ” f

o rt h e p u rp o s e s o f

S e c t i o n 2 2 5 4 ( d )

. I n d e e d , we des cr i bed the l ow ercour tas h avi ng “r eac h[ed] , ” r athert han a d j u d i c a t e d , t h e me r i t s o f Na r a ’ s c l a i m. Fahy v. H

orn is a lso c o n sis ten t w ith o u r d e c isio n in th is cas e. I n Fahy , w e ap p li ed A E D P A d ef ere n ce to a lo w er c o u rt ’s d ec isi o n o n the m erit s ev en tho u g h a st ate ap p ell ate c o u rt di s m i s s ed the pet i t i oner ’ s s ubsequent appea l as w ai ved. 516 F. 3d at197, 199 , 2 02–03. T he uni que fa ct s of t hatcas e, how ever , w arr ant ed s uch a di s pos i t i on. I n Fahy , w h ile h is appea l of t he l ow er cour t ’ s deci s i on on t he mer i t s w as pendi ng, th e p e tit io n e r f

iled a m o tio n to “ w ith d ra w h is a p p e a l a n d to w a iv e a ll co llate ra l p ro c e e d in g s s o th a t h is d e a th se n ten c e c o u ld b e car r i ed out

. ” Id

. at177. T he appe l l at e courtr emanded t he appea l t o t he l ow ercour t “for a col l oquyt o det er m i ne w hether p e tit io n e r f

u llyu n d e rsta n d s t h e c o n se q u e n c e s o f h is re q u e st to w ithd raw h is ap p ea l and to w aive all co ll ateral p roc ee d in g s .” Id

. A ft erconduct i ng t he col l oquy , t he l ow ercour tdet er m i ned

### 16 t hatt he pet i t i oner ’ s w i t hdr aw al and w ai ver deci s i ons w er e made k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly, an d th e p e titio n e r a p p e a le d

. Id

. at 1 7 8 ; s ee al

s o C om m onw eal th v. Fahy , 700 A

. 2d 1256, 1258–59 ( Pa

. 1 9 9 7 )

. Th e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a f f i r me d t h e v a l i d i t y o f t he p e tit io n e r’s w it h d r a w a l an d w a iv e r, an d d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. 516 F. 3d at178; 700 A

. 2d at1259–60.
O n fede r al habea s r evi ew , w e ac know l edged that“the st at e suprem e cou rtnev er r each e d the m eri t s of [p et i t i on er’ s] pet i t i on beca us e of hi s w ai ver , [but ] w e bel i eve that d efe r ence s t i l l appl i es to the [low ers t at e] cour t ’ s deci s i on. ” 516 F. 3d at 203 n. 36. W e arr i ved att hatconcl us i on beca u se af t ert he ap p ell ate c o u rtaf

firm ed the v ali d ityo f th e p eti ti o n er’s w ith d ra w a l an d w a iv e r, th e lo w e r c o u rt’s d e c isio n o n th e m e rits w a s th e d e c is io n th a t f

in a lly re s o lv e d th e c la im s . S ee A n g elv. B ul l i ngt on , 330 U

. S. 183, 189 ( 1947) ( “I f a l i t i gant choos es not t o cont i nue t o as s er t hi s r i ght s aft er an i nt er m edi at e tr i bunal has deci ded aga i ns thi m , he has concl uded hi s l i t i gat i on as effecti velyas t ho ug h h e had proceed ed thr ou g h th e highest tr ibu n al av ail ab le t o h im

. ”). T h ere fo re , th e low er c o u rt ’s deci s i on w as an “a dj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s ” thatw arr ant ed A E D PA defe r ence . I n s um , fort he purpos es of Sect i on 2254( d) , a cl ai m has been “adjudi cat ed o n the m eri t s i n S tate courtproceed i ng s” w hen a s t at e courthas m ade a deci s i on t hat fi nal l yr es ol ves t he claim b ase d o n it s su b stan ce , n o t on a p ro ce d u ral, o r oth er, gr ound. H er e, nei t her t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tnort he

### No twit hstand ing the Penn sylvania Sup rem e Court ’s 4 

### deci si onto dismis s th em onprocedural ground s, Th om as has ex h au sted all three claim s b ef o re u s o n h is ap p eal. See Holland v. H o rn , 5 1 9 F .3 d1 0 7 , 1 1 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“[ A ] p etitio n er w ill have exhausted his s tatere m edie s e ve n if the s tatecourt does n o t ad dress h is f

ed eral claim s o n th e m erits b ut, in stead , rej ects the c la im s on an ind ependent and adequ at e s tateground .” ). Ad diti on al ly , there is no proceduralba r on fe deral habea s r e v iew

. Si nc e Thom a s fi l e d hi s PCRA pe t i t i on be for e the Penn sylvania

Suprem e Court

abando nedit s “ re laxed w ai ver” doc tri ne for

c a pi t a lc a s e s i n Com m o n we alt h v

. Albre c ht , 720 A.2d69 3 (Pa. 199 8), the Penn sylvania S up re m e Court ’s d ismissal o f

T h o m as’ c l a i ms as w aiv ed“is n o t ad equ ate to supp ort the ju dg m ent for the purpo se of find ing a procedural de fa ul t un de r fe de r a l ha

be a s l aw.” J

a c o b s v. H

o rn , 395 F. 3d 92, 117–18 ( 3d Ci r. 2005)

. The Comm onwe a l th doe s not c ont e s t thi s poi nt , but

doe s pr e s e rve i t

for pot e nt i a l e n banc or 17 P C R A co u rt “a d

jud icated o n the m erit s” th e thre e c lai m s b ef o re us on T hom as ’ appea l

. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r evi ew pur el yl egal q u e s tio n s a n d m ix e d q u e stio n s o f law a n d f

a c t de novo , but pr es um e the corr ectnes s of anyfac tual concl us i ons m ade byt he s ta te c o u rt s . See Appel , 250 F. 3d at210.
B.
Ha v i n g d e c i d e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w, we w i l l m o v e t o the m eri t s of t he clai m s ati ssue i n T ho m as’ a p p e a l. 4

### Supr e m e Co ur t r e vi e w. F in ally , w e rej ect th e C o mm o nw ealth ’s su g g estio nto fram e a llof

Th om as ’ c la im s a s c hall enges t o counsel ’s e ffe c t i ve ne s s , i nc ludi ng thos e that a s s ert tri a le rr or s . Our p ractice i s to en tertainth e m erits o f th e claim s adv an ced

. See , e . g. , Fahy , 516 F.3dat

18 9 (“Bec ause ther e are no p ro ce du ra l b arriers to o ur ex ercise o f j urisd ictio n , w e p ro ceed to th e m erits of Fahy ’s habeas peti ti on .” ). 18 1.
T hom as ’ fi r s tcl ai m i s t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i on on t he d efi nit i on of reas on able dou bt vi olat ed d ue p rocess becau se i ts ugges t ed a hi gherdegr ee of doubtt han i s r equi r ed for acqui t t al undert he r eas onabl e doubts t andar d. H er e, t he tr i al cour ti ns t ruct ed t he j ur yt hata r eas onabl e doubti s “s uch a doubt as w oul d caus e a r eas onabl e per s on t o r es t r ai n fr om act i ng i n a m at t erof gr eati m por t ance in hi s orherow n l i fe. ” Thom as ar gues t hatt he w or ds “res t r ai n fr om act i ng” s ett he Co mm o n we a l t h ’ s b u r d e n o f p r o o f t o o l o w. “The r eq u ir em entt hatgui l tof a c r i m i nal char ge be est a bl i s he d b ypr oo f b e y on d a r e a s on a bl e do ub tda t e s a tl e ast fr om ourear l yy ear s as a N at i on. ” In re W in sh ip , 397 U

. S. 358, 361 ( 197 0 ). T r i al cour t s ar e fr ee t o pr ovi de j ur i es w i t h a d e f in itio n f o r r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. V

i ct orv. N ebr as ka , 511 U

. S. 1, 5 ( 1994)

. Fur t her , “s o l ong as t he courti ns t ruct s t he j ur yon t he nece s s i t yt hatt he def endant ’ s gui l tbe pr oved bey ond a

### 19 r eas onabl e doubt , t he C ons t i tut i on does not req u i r e thatany part icul arfor m of w or ds be us ed i n advi s i ng t he j ur yof t he governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof. ” Id

. (i n terna l citat ion s o m itted). O ur t ask o n re view i s t o d et erm i ne “w hethert here i s a re a so n a b le like lih o o d th a t th e ju ryu n d e rsto o d th e in stru c tio n s to al l ow convi ct i on bas ed on pr oof i ns uffi ci entt o m eet ” the re a s o n a b le d o u b t s ta n d a rd

. See i d. at6 (cit ing Es t el l e v. McG uir e , 5 0 2 U

. S

. 6 2 , 7 2 & n . 4 (19 9 1 )).
T he Penns y l vani a Supr em e C our thas a l ong hi s t or yof appr ovi ng and r ecomm endi ng t he “r es t r ai n fr om act i ng” f o rm u latio n th a t th e trial c o u rt u se d h e re to d e f in e re a so n a b le d o u b t. In 1 9 5 4 , the C o u rt in c lu d e d th is f o rm u latio n in its “s t andar d and appr oved form of cha r ge”: a r eas onabl e doubt “mustbe an hone s t doubtar i s i ng outof t he evi dence i t s el f, t he ki nd of a doubt t hat w oul d r es t r ai n a r eas onabl e man ( orw om an) f ro m a c tin g in a m a tte r o f i m p o rt a n c e to h im s e lf (o r h e rs e lf

).” C om m onw eal th v. D onough , 1 0 3 A .2 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 7 (P a. 19 5 4 ). Si nce then, t he C our thas aff i r m ed t he us e of t he “r es t r ai n fr om a c tin g ” f

o rm u la tio n o n m a n y o c c a s io n s . See, e. g. , C o m m o n w e a lth v . M

a rs h a ll , 810 A

. 2d 1211, 1225 ( Pa

. 2002) (“ [ W ]e h a v e e x p licitly a p p ro v e d o f [ re a so n a b le d o u b t] i ns t ruct i ons cont ai ni ng t he w or d ‘ r es t r ai n’ fornear l yfi ve d e c a d e s.” (c itatio n s o m itt e d )); Comm o n we a l th v . Young , 317 A

. 2d 258, 261–62 ( Pa. 1974) ( “[W ] e have r epea t edl ypl ace d our i m pr i m aturon t he cha r ge ex p ress ed i n C om m onw eal th v. D onough

. . . . ” ); C om m onw eal th v. B ur ns , 1 8 7 A. 2 d 552, 5 6 0

– 6 1 (P a . 1 9 6 3 ) (d e f in in g re a so n a b le d o u b t as e x p re ss e d in

### 20 D onough ).
T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas notaddr es s ed w hethert he “r es t r ai n fr om act i ng” form ul at i on i s acc ept ab l e. I ns t ead, i t has r epea t edl y appr oved of de fi ni ng r eas onabl e doubt as “a doubtt hat w oul d caus e a r eas onabl e per s on t o h e sita te to act
. ” V i ct or , 5 1 1 U

. S

. at 20 (em p h asis ad d ed ).
C om par i ng t he “he s i t at e t o act ” i ns t ructi o n w i t h t he

“ re stra in f

ro m a c tin g ” f

o rm u latio n , w e a re in c lin e d to a g re e w ith T hom as t hatt he l at t erpl ace s a l ow erbur den of pr oof on t he p rose cu ti o n . “H esit ate” im p li es a tem p o raryinterrup ti o n b ef o re a c tin g . See W

ebst er’s Th i rd N

ew Int ’l D i ct i on ary 1061 ( 1966) (“ h e sita te . . . 1 a : to h o ld b a c k in d o u b t o r in d e c isio n : av o id fac i n g a d e c i s i o n , e n c o u n t e r , o rp r o b l e m . . . b : t o h o l d back f r o m a s i f f r o m s c ru p l e . . . 2 : t o d e l a y [ u s u a l l y] m o m e n t a r i l y : P au se . . . 3 : Stam m er . . . . ”). “R estrain” su g g ests a m o re p ro lo n g e d , if n o t p e rm a n e n t, p e ri o d o f in a c tio n . See id

. at1936 ( “r es t r ai n . . . 1 a : t o hol d ( as a per s on) back f r om s om e ac t i on, pr ocedur e, orcour s e : pr eventfr om doi ng s om ethi ng ( as by phy s i cal orm or al for ce ors oci al pr es s ur e)

. . . b : to l i m i tor r es t r i ctt o ori n r es pectt o a part i cul aract i on orcour s e : keep w i t hi n bounds orundercontr ol

. . . 2 a : t o m oder at e or l i m i tt he f o rc e , ef f e c t, d e v e lo p m e n t, or f

u ll ex e rc ise o f

: p re v e n t o r ru le out exce s s es or extr emes of

. . . b : t o keep fr om b ei ng m ani fes t ed orper for m ed .

. . 4 a : to de pr i ve of l i ber t y: pl ace under arr es t or r es t r ai nt b : t o depr i ve (a s of l i ber t y ) byr es t r ai nt : abridg e the fre ed o m o f . . .

. ” (o b so let e d ef init ion s o m itted)).

### 21 A ccor di ngl y , defi ni ng r easo nabl e doubtas s uch a doubtt hat w oul d “r es t r ai n” one’s ac ti ons decr eas es , t o s om e ext ent , t he b u rde n o f p roo f th at t h e p ro s e c u ti o n w o u ld h av e to m ee t w ere t he “he s i t at e t o act ” form ul at i on empl oy ed i ns t ead.
N o n e th e les s, e v e n th o u g h w e b e liev e th a t th e “ re stra in fr om act i ng” form ul at i on l es s ens t he pr os ecut ion ’s bur den of pr oof, w e ca nnots ayt hati t s us e i s uncons t i tut i onal

. T he Supr eme C our thas neveri ndi cat ed th at a r eas onabl e doubt i ns t ruct i on m us tdemand as m uch fr om t he pr os ecut ion as t he

“ h e sita te to a c t” f

o rm u latio n d o e s. In ste a d , th e C o u rt h a s m e re ly descri bed t he “hesi t at e t o act ” form ulat i on as a “com m on sense b e n c h m a rk f

o r j u s t h o w s u b s t a n t i a l s u c h a d o u b t m u s t b e .” V i ct or , 511 U

. S. at20–21. I tdoes notfol l ow t hatanydefi ni t i on re q u irin g m o re d o u b t th a n th is b e n c h m a rk is u n c o n stitu tio n a l.
T he C our thas pr ovi ded us w i t h a st andar d foras s es s i ng t he con s t i tu t i o nal i t yof a r eas onabl e doubti ns t ruct i on: “‘ [T]a ken as a w hol e, t he i ns t ruct i ons [m us t ] corr ect lyconve[ y ] t he conce ptof reas onabl e doubtt o t he j ur y . ’ ” Id

. at6 ( quot i ng H ol l and v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 348 U

. S. 121, 140 ( 1954) )

. A ppl y i ng t hi s s t andar d, t he C our thas appr oved o f r eas onabl e doubt in s tr u c tio n s t h a t d e f

in e d th e te rm a s “ th e k in d o f d o u b t . . . w hi ch y ou fol ks i n t he more s er i ou s and i m por t antaff ai r s of y ourow n l i ves m i ghtbe w i l l i ng t o actupon, ” H ol l and , 34 8 U. S.T he cha r ge r evi ew ed i n H ol l and t hus s poke i n t er m s of 5 a doubts uffi ci entt o pr ovi de a bas i s for aff i r m at i ve ac t i on i n an im p o rt an t perso n al m att er, as co n tr asted w ith the c h arg e b ef o re u s w h ich sp o k e in ter m s o f a d o u b t su f f icie n t to p ro v id e a b a sis forchoos i ng nott o acti n s uch a m at t er . B ot h, how ever , s poke of a doubts uffi ci entt o contr ol one’ s behavi or , as contr as t ed w ith a d o u b t suf

ficien t t o ca u se o n e to “ h esi ta te to ac t. ” In H ol l and , the C o u rt e x p re ss e d a p re f e re n c e f o r a “ h e sita te to a c t” char ge buthel d t hatt he char ge gi ven ther e w as “notof t he type t hatcoul d m i s l ead the j ur yi nt o fi ndi ng no r eas onab le doubt w hen i n fac tt her e w as s om e. ” 348 U

. S. at140. W hi l e w e have c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c h a rg e g iv e n h e re c o u ld b e u n d e rsto o d to l ow er the governm ent ’ s bur den t o s om e degr ee f r om t hat i m pos ed by a “hes i t at e t o act ” cha r ge, t hatdegr ee i s no gr eat er t han the degr ee of

l ow er i ng i n H

ol l and , and w e ar e conf i dent t hather e, t oo, t he char ge w as not of t he t ype t hat coul d m i s l ead t h e j u r y. 

### 22 at140, “nota mer e pos s i bl e doubt

. . . [but ] t hats t at e of the

5 c a se w h ich , af

ter th e e n tire c o m p a riso n a n d c o n sid e ra tio n o f a ll t he evi dence , l eave s t he m i nds of t he j ur or s i n t hatcondi t i on t hat t heycannots ayt heyfee l an abi di ng convi ct i on, t o a mora l cert ai nt y , of t h e tr u t h of t he cha r ge, ” V i ct or , 5 1 1 U .S . at 7 ( emphasi s om it t ed) , and “a n actual and s ubs t ant i al doubt r eas onabl yar i s i ng fr om t he evi dence , fr om t he fa cts or ci r cumst ance s sh o w n byt he evi dence , orfr om t he l ack of evi dence on t he partof t he St at e, as di s t i ngui s hed fr om a doubt ar i s i ng fr om m er e pos s i bi l i t y , fr om bar e i m agi n ati on, orfr om fanc i ful conj ectur e, ” id

. at 18 (em p h asis o m itted).

### 23 I n contr as t , t he C our thas hel d onl yone r eas onabl e doubt in stru c tio n to b e c o n stitu tio n a llyd e f icie n t:
Itm us t be s uch doubt as w ould gi ve r is e t o a g ra v e u n c e rta in ty , r ai s ed i n y our m i nd byr eas ons of t he uns at i s fac t or ychar act erof t he evi dence or lack there o f. A rea so n ab le do u b t i s n o t a m ere p o s s ib le d o u b t. I

tis an act ual s ubs t ant i aldoubt

. It is a d o u b t th a t a r e a so n a b le m a n c a n se r io u sly ent er t ai n. W hat i s r equi r ed i s not an absolu te or m athemat i cal cert ai nt y , buta m o ra l ce rta in ty
. C age v. Louis i ana , 498 U

. S. 39, 40 ( 1990)

. I n C age , the C o u rt rea so n ed that “the w o rd s ‘su b stan ti al’ an d ‘gra v e,’ as they are c o m m o n ly u n d e rsto o d , s u g g e st a h ig h e r d e g re e o f d o u b t th a n is r equi r ed foracqui t t al undert he r eas onabl e doubts t andar d. ” Id

. at41. T he C our tcont i nued: “[w ] hen thos e s t at ement s ar e then cons i der ed w i t h r efe r ence to ‘ m or al cert ai nt y , ’ r athert han evi dent i arycert ai nt y , i tbecom es cl eart hata r eas onabl e j ur or c o u ld h a v e in ter p re ted th e in stru c tio n to a llo w a f in d in g o f g u ilt bas ed on a de gr ee of

pr oof bel ow t hat req u ir ed byt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ” Id

. Vi e w e d a g a i n s t t h i s j u r i s p ru d e n t i a l b a c k g r o u n d , we concl ude thatt he r eas onabl e d o u bti ns t ruct i on us ed her e w as co n sti tuti o n al. A lth o u g h “re str ain f ro m ac ti n g ” re q u ir es m o re doub t t o a c qu i t t ha n “ he s i t a t e t o a c t , ” i t do e s no t , by i t s e l f, so r ai s e the thr es hol d as t o “s ugges t a hi gher degr ee of doubtt han

### Th e Pennsylvania Suprem e Court

has a ls o rejec te d 6 

### ar gum e nt s that the wor d “ he s i t at e ” m us t r e pl a c e “ r e s tr a i n” i n a p ro p er reaso n ab le d o ub t in stru ctio n . Se e, e . g. , Co m m o n w ea lth v . Brown , 368 A.2d 6 2 6 , 63 4 (Pa. 197 6) (dis mis si ng an “obj ec t[ion] to the use of the word ‘res tr ai n’, and[the] sugg es t[ion that] ‘hes it at e’ is a m ore a pp ropriatest andard”); se e al s o, e . g. , Co mm on wealth v. Po rter , 728 A.2d89 0, 89 9 (Pa. 1999) ( “ [T]he di s t i nc t i on be twe e n ‘ he s i t at e be for e a c t i ng’ and ‘restrainb ef

o re actin g ’ is d

e m in im is an dclearly

su cha sub tle vari ation in p hras ing w ou ld no t be an abuse of the tri alcourt’ s di s c r e t i on. ” )

. I t

ha s done s o e ve n though Se c t i on 7. 01( 3) of the Pe nns yl vani aSugge s t e d S t andar d Cri mi na lJury I ns tr uc t i ons reco mm en d s p ro v id in g j uries w itha d ef in itio no f reas o n ab le do ub t t hat i ncludes the wo rd “hes it at e. ” See Co mm on wealth v. Coll i ns , 9 5 7 A .2 d2 3 7 , 2 6 4 (P a. 2 0 0 8 ); Commonwe alt h v

. Ri os , 9 2 0 A

. 2 d7 9 0 , 8 0 5

– 0 6 (P a. 2 0 0 7 ); Commonwe alt h v

. Car s on , 9 1 3 A .2 d2 2 0 , 2 5 4 (P a. 2 0 0 6 ); Po rter , 728 A. 2d at 899–900. 24 is re q u ir e d f

o r a c q u itta l u n d e r t h e re a s o n a b le d o u b t s ta n d a rd .” S e e id

. at 4 1

. A s a resu lt , the t ri al co u rt ’s m ere u se o f th e w o rd

“ re stra in ,” th o u g h p e rh a p s n o t id e a l, i s n o t en o u g h to re n d e r its e n tire in stru c tio n u n c o n stitu tio n a l. 6
2.
T h o m as’ s e c o n d claim is th at t h e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s cl os i ng ar gum entats ent enci n g vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s and E i ght h A m endment r i ght s byi nvi t i ng t he j ur yt o con sideran i mp r o p e rs e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r

— f u tu r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s . He

### 25 cont ends t hat t he C om m onw eal t h ’ s c o n d u ct w as uncons t i tut i onal for t w o r eas ons : 1) i tur ged the j ur yt o cons i der f u tu r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s w h e n c o n t e m p l a t i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y, w hi ch a j ur ycannotdo underPenns y l vani a l aw ; and 2) i tcr eat ed an unacce pt abl e ri s k t hat t he j ur ybel i eved, i n err or , t hatT hom as coul d be r el eas ed on par ol e i f he w er e not sen tenc ed t o death. T hom as al s o cl ai m s t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ectt o t he C om m onw eal t h’ s ar gum ent or t o s eek c ur at i ve i nst ruct i on s. In re v iew ing the c o n sti tuti o n a lity o f th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s conductats ent enci ng, “[t ] he r el evantques t i on i s w hethert he pr os ecut or s ’ comm ent s ‘ s o i nfec t ed t he tr i al w i t h unfai r nes s as to m ak e the resu lt ing co n v ict ion a d en ial o f d u e p roc ess.’” D ar den v. W

ai nw r ight , 477 U

. S. 168, 181 ( 1986) ( quot i ng D on nell y v. D eC hrist oforo , 416 U

. S. 637, 643 ( 1974) )

. H er e, at s ent enci ng, the C om m onw eal t h s t at ed the fol l ow i ng as par tof i t s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n tt o t h e j u r y:

T h e re sits B ria n T h o m a s, th e re sits convi ct ed B ri an T hom as . Y ou have f ound w hat he di d to L i nda J ohns on. Y ou hear d w hat happene d t o [t he] t hr ee y earol d [w h o m he as s aul t ed]

. . . . Y ou hear d w hathappene d t o [t he n eigh b o r w h o se b ed roo m h e tresp asse d into]. I ti s notform e t o s ay , i ti s notfort he J udge t o s ay . O nl yy ou can s ay enough. O nl yy ou c a n s a ys to p .

### 26 I s ubm i tt o y ou, l adi es and gent l emen, t hat B ria n T h o m a s h a s u se d u p h is c h a n c e s. I w o u ld s ubm i tt o y ou t hati t ’ s t i m e fors o m ebodyt o s ay B ria n T h o m a s, y o u h a v e f o rf e ited y o u r rig h t to l i ve among ci vi l i zed pe op l e byy ourconduct , by y ourbehavi or , w haty ou di d, w hyy ou di d i tand h o w y o u d id it. Y o u sh o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d to cont i nue. T her e i s nota c r yher e, l adi es and g en tl em en , fo r ve n g ea n ce . T h ere is no t a cryh ere to b rin g b a c k a p e rso n w h o is d e a d . [B ]u t th e re is a cry her e, l adi es and gent l emen, fort he type [of ] per s on w ho w oul d brut al l ybeat , r ape a nd s e x u a l[ ly] m u tila te a n o th e r h u m a n b e in g . . . . [I ] t ’ s t i m e fors om ebodyt o s ay i n s om e w ayB r i an T hom as , enough i s enou g h. T he ci t i zens of Phi l adel phi a ca n’ tt ol er at e y ou i n t hei rm i ds t , t ake y ou out s om ew her e w her e y ourt ype [of ] conduct w i l l note v e rb e a t h r e a tt o t h e c i t i z e n s of Phi l adel phi a aga i n. [* * *]

. . . I s ubm i t to y o u t hatbas ed on y our fi ndi ngs and bas ed on the fa ct s of t hi s cas e, y ou m us ts ayt her e i s no m i t i gat i on, t he buck s t ops her e, and forw haty ou di d, B r i an Thom as , y ou s houl d di e. [Y ] ou s houl d di e. T h e C o m m on w eal t h’s cl osi ng do es not ur ge the j uryto

### 27 co n side r T h o m as’ f

u ture d an g ero u sn ess a s a se n tenc ing fa ctor. T ake n in i s ol at i on, cert ai n s t at ement s m ays eem t o bor deron s uch an a ppeal

. B utw hen vi ew ed i n cont ext , t he C om m on w eal t h’s m essage i s cl ear: T ho m as’ cri m es, bo t h p ast a n d p r e s e n t , a r e s o r e p u l s i v e t h a t t h e y w a r r a n tt h e d e a t h p e n a l t y. T he C om m on w eal th’ s r e fe r e nc es t o Joh nson ’s m urder, T ho m as’ assa u lto f th e thre e-y ea r-old, an d h is tresp ass into a n eigh b o r’s b e d ro o m d e m o n stra te th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth w a s f ra m in g its a rg u m e n t w ith th e a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e th a t itso u g h t to sh o w a t se n ten c in g : T h o m a s’ h isto ry o f v io len t f e lo n ies . W ith t hati n m i nd, the C o m m onw eal t h’ s cal l s fort he j ur yt o “s ay enough, ” “s ays t op, ” and t o t el l T hom as t hat“[y ] ou s houl d not be al l ow ed t o cont i nue, ” ar e pl ai n all u si ons t o i t s cl ai m t hat “B r i an Thom as has us ed up hi s chanc es, ” and that“the buck sto p s h e r e , an d f

o r w h a t y o u d id , B ria n T h o m a s, y o u sh o u ld di e. ” I ndeed, t he C om m onw eal t h’ s us e of t he w or d “tol er at e” and t he phr as e “y our t ype [of] conduct ” i ndi cat es t hati tw ant ed t he j ur yt o im p o se t he dea t h penal t ybeca us e the “c i t i zens of Phi l a d e l p h i a ” h a d h a d e n o u g h o f Th o ma s ’ p a s tc r i mi nal conduct , notbeca us e Thom as coul d be a thr eatt o s oci etyi n t he f u tu re . Cf

. Si m m ons v. South C ar ol i na , 512 U

. S. 154, 157 (1 9 9 4 ) (ch ara cterizi n g an arg u m en t th at de ath “ w o u ld b e ‘a r es pons e of s oci etyt o s om eone w ho i s a threa t. Y ourver di ct w il l be a n ac t o f self-d ef en se’” as a n arg u m en t t o co n side r fu ture d an g ero u sn ess a s a se n tenc ing fa ctor).
N ordoes t he C om m onw eal t h’ s ar gum entcre at e an un accep t able r i sk t hat the j ury beli eved t hat, i f i tdid not i m po se

### B ecau se w e see n o m erit to T h o m as’ un d erlyin g claim 7 

### of e rr or , we a l s o hol d that c ouns e l wa s not i ne ffe c t iv e for f ailin g to o b

j ect. See M

oo rev. Depu tyCo mm ’rs of SCIHunti ngdon , 946 F.2d 23 6, 24 5 (3d Cir. 19 91 ) ( concluding that coun se l was no t i ne f

f ec ti v e for fail ing to o bj ec t where “there wo uld h ave been no b as is fo r the ob ject ion”). 28 t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y, T h o m a s c o u l d b e r e l e a s e d o n p a r o l e . P l a i n l y, t he C om m onw eal t h never m ent i oned par ol e, and w e do notr ead i t s ar gum entas s ugges t ing t hatT hom as coul d be par ol ed fr om a l i fe s ent ence . A s a r es ul t , t he C om m onw ealt h ’s conductat se n ten c in g w a s c o n stitu tio n a l. 7
3.
T h o m as’ thi r d cl ai m i s t hathi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o l i fe- qual i fyt he j ur y

— t o det er m i ne that e a c h ju ro r c o u ld v o te f o r a lif e s e n te n c e . Str i ckland

s et s t he relev an t t est: T h o m a s m u st sho w that 1 ) his co u n sel’s per for m ance w as defi ci ent , and 2) hi s couns el ’ s defi ci ent per for m ance caus ed hi m pr ej udi ce. 46 6 U

. S. at687. T o be defi ci ent , couns el ’ s per for m ance m us tfal l bel ow an obj ect i ve s ta n d a rd o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Id . at 6 8 7

– 8 8 . T o d e m o n stra te p re ju d ice , T h o m a s “ m u s t s h o w th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err o rs, t he r es ul t of t he proc eedi ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent
. ” Id

. at694.
I n Mo rg a n v . Ill in o is , 5 0 4 U. S

. 7 1 9 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e S u p r e me

### 29 C our th eld t hatdefe ndant s had a r i ghtt o l i fe- qual i fypot ent i al ju ro rs a t voirdir e . A t issue he r e i s notw hetherT hom as ’ t r i al couns el s houl d have know n he had a r i ghtt o as k l i fe- qual i fy i ng q u esti o n s at t h e ti m e the juryw as em p an eled

— six y ea rs be fo re Mor gan w as deci ded. I ti s cl eart hathe knew t hathe coul d: he as ked one j ur orl i fe

- q u al i fy i ng ques t i ons , and s he r es ponded that she cou ld v o te f

or a l i fe sentence un der cert ai n cir cum st ances. T he o nlyqu est i on i n thi s case i s w hether cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o ask t he r es tof t he j ur or s l i fe-q u al i fy i ng ques t i ons cons t i tut ed in e f f e c tiv e n e ss . W e b e liev e th a t itd o e s n o t. Fi r s t , w e not e thatt he S upr eme C our thas neveri m pos ed a n o b lig a tio n o n tr ia l c o u n s e l to lif e -q u a lif y a ju ry. See Mor

gan , 504 U

. S. at726 ( fr ami ng t he i s s ue as “w hetheron voi rdi r e the c o u rt m u s t, on defenda nt’s request , i nqui r e i nt o t he pr os pect i ve juro rs’ view s o n ca p it al pu n ishm en t” (em p h asis ad d ed )). Second, T hom as has noti dent i fi ed anyr el evant “[p] r evai l i ng nor m s of pr act i ce a s r efl ect ed i n A m eri can Bar A s s oci at i on s t andar ds and the l i ke, ” Str i ckland , 466 U

. S. at688, t hats ugges tt hatT hom as ’ couns el had an obl i gat i on t o l i feq u a l i f y t h e j u r y. T hi r d, t he re cor d does not i ndi cat e thatT hom as ’ couns el had anyr eas on t o li fe -qual i fyanyaddi t i onal j ur or s . T hom as s ugges t s t hatt w o j ur or s s how ed s o m uch en thu sia s m fort he death p en alt yin the irresp o n ses to the c o u rt ’s de ath-q u ali fi cat i on ques t i on t hatt heys houl d have been l i fe- qual i fi ed: 1) one j ur or

### 30 r es ponded w it h “I bel i eve i n t he dea t h penal t y ” w hen as ked w hetherhe had “ anym or al , r el i gi ous orethi cal bel i efs w hi ch coul d pr event[hi m ] fr om vot i ng fort he dea t h penal t yi n a pr opercas e”; and 2) anotherj ur orans w er ed “[ n] o” bef or e the cour t fi ni s hed as ki ng t he ques t i on. T o us , how ever , nei t her re sp o n se is so in d ica tiv e o f a b ias in f a v o r o f th e d e a th p e n a lty t h a te f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l wo u l d h a v e a s k e d t o l i f e - q u a l i f yt h e s e t wo j urors . T here are a m yri ad of reas on s w hyt he fir stj uror chose to u se th e w o rd s th a t h e d id , a n d th e se c o n d ju ro r c h o se to ans w eras qui ckl yas he di d

. W it h o u tm or e, w e w i l l not s pecul at e that the ydi d s o beca us e of a nyenthus i as m fort he d e a t h p e n a l t y. Four t h, even i f Thom as ’ couns el w er e def i ci entfor f a i l i n g t o l i f

e - q u a l i f y e v e r y j u r o r , T h o ma s h a s n o ts h o wn pr ej udi ce . Si nce Penns y l vani a’ s death s ent ence can onl ybe im p o s e d b ya u n a n im o u s ju ry, s ee 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. § 97 11 (c) (i v), T ho m as has dem on strat ed prej ud i ce i f “‘there i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , b u t forcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s . . . ’ one j ur or[w oul d have] vot ed t o i m pos e a s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entr ather t han the dea t h penal t y . ” B on d v. B eard , 539 F. 3d 256, 285 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng Str i ckland , 46 6 U. S. at694)

. T hom as has pr ovi ded n o t a shr ed of e vi dence s ugges t i ng anypr obabi l i t yt hat , h ad hi s t r i al couns el l i feq u a lifie d e v e ryju r o r, at le a st o n e ju ro r w o u ld h a v e v o ted to s ent ence T hom as t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent
. H e s i m pl yi nvi t es our s p e c u l a t i o n . Acc o r d i n g l y , Th o ma s ’ c l a i m f o r h a b e a s r e l i ef on t hi s gr ound w as pr oper l ydeni ed.

### 31 I V.
W e tur n nextt o t he i s s ues t hatt he C om m onw eal t h r ai s es on cr os s - appea l

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed Thom as s ent enci ng r el i ef beca us e i t det er m i ned t hat t w o of hi s cl ai m s had mer i t : 1) T h o m a s’ 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 in v e stig a te a n d p re se n t m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e , a n d 2 ) T h o m a s’ w a iv e r o f h is rig h t to p re se n t m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e w a s n o t m a d e k n o w in g ly a n d in te llig e n tly. T

h o m a s III

, 3 8 8 F. Supp. 2d at505–11, 513– 1 6

. On c r o s s - a p p e a l , t h e Commo n wea l t h a r g u e s t h a tt he D i s tr i c tC our terr ed i n vaca t i ng T hom as ’ s ent ence beca us e 1) t he D istric t C o u rt a p p lied th e w ro n g sta n d a rd o f re v iew , 2 ) th e re is in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e th a t T h o m a s’ c o u n se l f a iled to in v e stig a te m i t i gat i ng evi dence , and 3) anydefi ci encybycouns el di d not prej ud i ce T ho m as. A.
T he C om m onw eal t h cl ai m s t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n r e v i e wi n g Th o ma s ’ i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e a n d wa i v e rc l a i ms de novo beca us e theyw er e “a dj udicat ed on the mer i t s ” byt he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t , and A E D PA defe r ence pur s uant t o Sect i on 2254( d) i s w arr ant ed. W e di s agr ee. I ti s cl eart hatT hom as r ai s ed both t he i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e a n d w a iv e r c laim s i n s ta te c o u rt. O n d ire c t ap p e a l, T hom as ass er t ed thathe di d notw ai ve hi s r i ghtt o pr es ent m i t i gat i ng evi dence know i ngl yand i nt el l i gent l y . I ndeed, he

### 32 su b m itt e d a n a f

f id a v it t h a t s e t o u t th e f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r th is c l a i m: I di d nott hen under s t and thatI coul d pr es ent evi dence conce r ni ng m ychar act er as a mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance du ri ng t he pena l t yphas e. I w as undert he bel i ef thatI coul d onl ypr es entevi dence re latin g to th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e o f f e n se . T h is i s t he r eas on w hyI decl i ned t o pr es entany t e s t i mo n ya tt he pe n a l t yh e a r i n g . . . . At n o t i me di d m y at t or ney expl ai n t o m e t hatev idence conce rnin g m ychar act ercoul d ors houl d be pr es ent ed fo rt he j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on att he penal t yhear i ng. I n hi s PC R A pet i t i on, T hom as r epea t ed thi s cl ai m , and adde d an a lleg a tio n th a t c o u n se l w a s ine f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to in v e stig a te and pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence t hat w as avai l abl e att he t i m e of hi s s ent enci ng. Ev e n t h o u g h Th o ma s r a i s e d t h e s e c l a i ms d u r i ng t he c o u rse of the st at e cou rtproceed i ng s, no st at e cou rtact u a lly adj u d i c a t e d t h e m o n t h e i r me r i t s . Th e PCRA c o u r t a n d t he r evi ew i ng Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdecl ined t o r eac h t he me r i t s o f e a c h

. I n s t e a d , b o t h c o u r t s d e t e r mi n e d t h a tt h e c l a i ms
“ h a v e p r e v i o u s l yb e e n d e c i d e d b y [ t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our t ] on di r ect appea l

. ” T h o m a s II, 7 4 4 A

. 2 d at 7 1 4 & n . 3

. In r eac hi ng t hatconcl us i on, bot h cour t s w er e m i s t aken. Fi r s t , t he P enn sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt c o u ld n o t h a v e a d d re ss e d T h o m a s’

### 33 i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m on di r ectappea l b ecaus e he r ai s ed i tfort he fi r s tt i m e i n hi s PC R A pet i ti o n . S ec o nd, on di r ect appea l , t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C o ur tneverdet er m i ned w h e th e r T h o m a s k n o w in g ly a n d in tellig e n tlyw a iv e d h is rig h t to p re se n t m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e . O n d ire c t ap p e a l, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our taddr essed onl yone mi t i gat i ng evi dence i s s ue: w hetherT hom as under s t ood t hathe c o u ld pr es entm i t i gat i ng ev iden ce . T

h o m as I, 561 A

. 2d at710 ( “Fi nal l y , A ppel l ant c o m p lain s th a t h is tria l co u n se l d id n o t ad v ise h im th a t h e c o u ld puto n evi dence o f

m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s a n d th a t th is o m issi o n w as p rejud ici al i n ef fe cti v en ess.” (em p h asis ad d ed )). B utT hom as ’ w ai vercl aim r ai s ed a c om pl et el ydi ffe r enti s s ue: h e ass er t ed thathi s w ai verw as notknow i ng and i nt el l i gent beca us e he di d notunder s t and the na t ur e a n d p urpo se of m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. T her efor e, no s t at e courtactual l ydeci ded t he cl ai m s t hatfor m ed the bas i s of t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr antT hom as habea s r el i ef.
T h e C o m m o n w e a lth p o in ts ou t th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our t , i n r evi ew i ng T hom as ’ PC R A p et i t i on, s t at ed th a t “[ t]h e iss u e o f

th e p re se n tatio n o f

m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e , in a ll it s p o ssible m an ifestati o n s , w as d eterm ined b ythis C o u rt ’s pr evi ous deci s i on. ” T h o m a s II, 744 A

. 2d at714 n. 3. T he Co mmo n we a l t h u r g e s u s t o a c c e p tt h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our t ’ s s t at ement a t f

ac e val ue and vi ew T hom as ’ cl ai m s as “adj udi cat ed on the mer i t s . ” T h is w e cannotdo. For t he purpos es of det er m i ni ng w hether t her e w as an “adj udi cat i on on th e m eri t s” i n st at e cou rt , w hat m at t ers m osti s w hat the s tate

### 34 c o u rt a c tu a llyd id , n o t w h a t itsa id it d id . W e c a n n o t b lin d ly accep ta cou rt ’s ex po st

char act er i zat i on of i t s pr i oract i on w hen thatchar act er i zat i on i s atodds w i t h w hatw e conc l ude the cou rt ’s pri or act i on plai nlyw as.

“ [ I]f a n e x a m in a tio n o f

th e o p in io n s o f

th e sta te c o u rts show s that theym i sund ers t oo d the nat ure of a p roperly exhaus t ed cl ai m and t hus fai l ed t o adj udi cat e thatcl ai m on t he m er i t s , t he def

er ent i al s t and ar ds of r evi ew i n A E D PA do not appl y . ” C hadw i ck v

. Janec ka , 3 1 2 F

. 3 d 5 9 7 , 6 0 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). H er e, t he r ecord p lai nl ys how s t hatw hi l e Thom as r ai s ed the c laim s a t issu e in sta te c o u rt, th e sta te c o u rts d id n o t re a c h th e ir m e ri ts
. A c c o rd in g ly, th e re w a s n o “ a d ju d ic a tio n o n th e m e ri ts ,” a nd t he D i stri ctC ou rtw as corr ecti n revi ew i ng t he clai m s de novo . See Appel , 250 F. 3d at210.
B.
T he D i s t r i ctC our taddr es s ed Thom as ’ i nef fe ct i ve a s s is ta n c e a n d w a iv e r c la im s to g e th e r, T h o m a s III

, 388 F. Supp. 2d at504, butT hom as ’ i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m w as t he foca l poi ntof i t s anal y s i s . Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcon cluded t hat tr ia l couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e and p re s e n t m itig a tin g e v id e n c e . Id

. at 505–11. Second, t he D i s t r i ct C ou r td e t e r mi n e d t h a tTh o ma s ’ wai v e ro f h i s r i g h tt o p r es ent m i t i gat i ng evi dence di d n o t cur e the pr ej udi ce c aus ed by couns el ’ s defi ci ency b ec aus e the w ai verw as notm ade k n o w in g ly an d i n te llig e n tly. Id . at 5 1 3

– 1 6 . A c c o rd in g ly , in

### 35 r ev iew ing the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on and the mer i t s of t he C om m o n w e a lth ’s c ro ss -a p p e a l, w e w ill c o n c e n tra t e on T ho m as’ i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. T he C o m m onw eal t h di r ect s ourat t ent i on t o t he e v id e n tiary re c o rd th a t T h o m a s is o b lig a ted to p ro d u c e in s uppor tof hi s i nef

fe cti ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . I tpoi nt s outt hat cour t s ass es s i ng at t or neyper for m ance m us tappl ya “s t r ong pr es um pt i on t hatcouns el ’ s conduct fal l s w i t hi n t he w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance . ” Str i ckland , 466 U

. S. at 6 8 9

. H ere , the C o m m o n w ea lth see s n o ev iden ce o n the re co rd conce r ni ng t he ex tent, i f any , of Thom as ’ couns el ’ s pr ese n ten c in g in v e stig a tio n in to m iti gati ng ev id e n c e . It arg u e s th a t, b a se d o n su c h a re c o rd , T h o m a s c a n n o t p o s s ib lyd e m o n stra te th a t hi s co u n se l w a s d e f

icie n t. A c c o rd in g ly , the C o m m o n w e a lth as s er t s t hatw e mustdenyT hom as ’ r eques tforhabea s r el i ef.
W e a g re e w ith th e C o m m o n w e a lth th a t th e r e c o rd is s par s e. T he onl ydocument ary ev ide nce di r ect l ypoi nt i ng t o a fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e i s a dec l ar at i on fr om T hom as ’ aunt , s i gned ni ne y ear s aft er T hom as ’ s ent enci ng, t hats t at es t hatno at t or ney o r in v e stig a to r a sk e d h e r a b o u t T h o m a s’ lif e a n d m e n tal h e a lth w hi l e he w as on t r i al

. B ut T hom as has s oughtt o pr ove thatt r i al couns el di d n oti nves t i gat e, s o T hom as ’ fai l ur e t o di s cover evi dence of an i nves t i gat i on i s i t s el f a s i gn t hatnone occ ur r ed. T her efor e, i ti s ent i r el yappr opr i at e fo r u s t o cons i derw hat T hom as has l ooked for , butcannotfi nd. H er e, aft erT hom as purpor t edl yw ai ved the pr es ent at i on of m i t i gat i ng evi dence ,

### 36 t her e w as no pr offe rfr om couns el i dent i fy i ng t he i nves t i gat i ve m eas ur es he had under t aken, or w hatevi dence he w as pr epar ed to p rese n t. A d d it ion all y , a sea rch o f the s tat e c o u rtfil e, w h ere T hom as ’ court -appoi nt ed couns el and the courtw oul d have l odged ce r t ai n cas e- r el at ed document s , y iel ded nothi ng s ugges t i ng an i nves t i gat i on— no r eques tfora mi t i gat i on i nves t i gat or , no r eques t for funds fora mi t i gat i on i nves t i gat i on, no r eques tfora def

ens e ment al heal t h expert , and no s ubpoenas form ent al heal t h r ecor ds

. H ad T hom as ’ couns el per for m ed any i nves t i gat i on, w e w oul d expec t ei t her s om e m ent i on of i ti n open cour tors om e “pa pertr ail ” sugges t i ng i ti n t he r ecor d of pr ocee di ngs . T he abs en ce of bot h i m pl i es t hatcouns el di d no i nves t i gat i ng. N o n e th e les s, f

ro m th is re c o rd , w e c a n n o t sim p lyju m p to the c o n clus ion that T h o m as’ co u n sel w as d ef ici en t. C o u n sel’s perform ance e njoy s a pres um pti on of ef fe c t i ve ne s s , a ndw e m ust “j udge the r eas onabl enes s of cou n sel ’ s chal l enged c onducton t he fa ct s of t he part i cul arcas e, vi ew ed as of the t i m e of couns el ’ s conduct

. ” Id

. at689–90. “A r evi ew i ng courtcannot m ake s uch a de t er m i nat i on on a cl ean s l at e. ” M a rs h a ll , 307 F

. 3 d a t1 0 6

. T h i s me a n s t h a t b a s e d o n t h e p r e s e n tr e c o r d , we cann ot affi rm t he D i stri ct C o u rt ’s con cl usi on t hat Th om as’ couns el w as defi ci entats ent enci ng. W e byno m eans go s o faras t o deny T h o m as t he pos s i bi l i t yof r el i ef. T hi s i s notthe fi r s t ti m e w e have been a sk e d to d e ter m in e c o u n se l’s e f f e c tiv e n e ss w h e re “ th e p ictu re is

### 37 l es s t han compl et e. ” Id

. I n M a rs h a ll , w e a lso h ad “n o rec o rd befor e us as t o w hatpr epar at i on ori nv es t i gat i on, i f any , w as p e rf o rm e d b yc o u n s e l in a n tic ip a tio n o f th e p e n a lty p h a s e . . . .” Id . W e th e re f

o re “ c o n c lu d e [ d ] th a t a D istric t C o u rt h e a rin g is esse n ti al, an d rem an d [e d ] fo r a ne w ruli n g b ythe D istri ct C o u rt as t o Str i ckland

bas ed upo n a compl et e r ecor d. ” Id

. at117. L ikew ise, w e be li ev e th at an yreso luti o n o f T h o m as’ Str i ckland claim s h ere is p re m ature w ith o u t th e b en ef ito f a n ev iden ti ary hear i ng. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r emand t he ca s e fora hea r i ng conce r ni ng t he e x tent , i f any , of Thom as ’ couns el ’ s pr es ent enci ng i nves t i gat i ve ef for t s t o obt ai n m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. C.
T he C om m onw eal t h ur g es tha tan evi dent i aryhear i ng w o u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te f o r tw o re a so n s: 1 ) T h o m a s h a s f a iled to devel op a fa ctual r ecor d i n s t at e court, so a hea r i ng w oul d be b arred b y2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2); an d 2 ) ev en if co u n sel w ere defi ci ent , T hom as cannotpr evai l beca us e he w as notpr e j udi ced. N ei t herof t hes e ar gum ent s ar e per s uas i ve. 1.
F irst, T h o m a s d id n o t “ f a il[] to d e v e lo p th e f

a c tu a l b a sis of a c l a i m i n St a t e c o u r t ” i n s u c h a wayt h a tc a u s e s Se ct i on

### A cco rd in g to 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2254( e) ( 2) 

### ’s op ening cla use, 8



### “ [i ]f the applic ant

ha s fa i l e d t o d e ve l op the fa c t ua lba s i s of

a cl ai m in Stat e c ourt

proceedi ng s, the c ourt

sh al l not ho ld an e vi de nti ary

he ari ngonthe c l a i m

. . . . ” Se c t i on s 22 54 ( e ) ( 2) ( A) and (B) li st

thre e e x ceptions to the opening cl ause , which ar e no t at i ss ue here. 38 2254( e) ( 2) t o bar an evi dent i ary hear i ng. “U ndert he openi ng 8 cl aus e of § 2254( e) ( 2) , a fai l ur e t o devel op t he factual bas i s of a cl ai m i s notes t abl i s hed unl ess th ere i s l ack of di l i gence , or so m e g rea ter f

au lt , att ri b u table to the p ri so n er o r t h e p ri so n er’s couns el

. ” W

i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U

. S

. 4 2 0 , 4 3 2 (20 0 0 ). “D i l i gence . . . d epends upon w hethert he pr i s onerm ade a r eas onabl e att empt, i n l i ghtof t he i nfor m at i on avai l abl e att he t i m e, t o i nves t i gat e and pur s ue cl ai m s i n s t at e court ; i tdoes not d e p e n d

. . . u p o n whe t h e rt h o s e e f f o r t s c o u l d h a v e been s ucce s s ful

. ” Id

. at435. I n Thom as v. V ar ner , 428 F. 3d 491 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ), w e conc l uded thatt he pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i n g i n t he s t at e pos t
- convi ct i on cour t , w hi ch w as deni ed, s how ed s uffi ci entdi l i g e n c e t o r enderSect i on 2254( e) ( 2) in a p p lic a b le

. Id

. at498. L i kew i s e, her e, T hom as r eques t ed an evi dent i aryhear i ng i n t he PC R A co ur tt o devel op t he fa ctual re c o rd f o r h is c laim th a t trial c o u n s e l f a iled to in v e stig a te m i t i gat i ng ev ide nce. T her efor e, Sect i on 2254( e) ( 2) does not a p p ly. See a l

so Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . at 4 3 7 (“ D ili g e n c e w ill r equi r e i n t he us ual cas e t hat t he pr i s oner , ata mi ni m um , s eek a n evi dent i aryhear i ng i n s t ate co u r ti n t he mannerpr es cr i bed by stat e law

. ”).

### 39 Secon d , w i t houta ful l ydevel oped r ecor d, w e ca nnot for ecl os e the pos s i bi l i t yt hatT h o m as w i l l be abl e t o s how p reju d ice— a re aso n ab le pro b ab il itythat, b u t fo r co u n sel’s defi ci ency , one j ur orw oul d have vot ed t o i m pos e a s ent ence of lif e im p ri s o n m e n t. See B ond , 539 F. 3d at285. I n Penns y l vani a, th e ju rym u st im p o se a se n ten c e o f life im p r is o n m e n t u n les s it unani m ous l yfi nds t hatt he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s out w ei gh the m it igating circu m stan ce s. 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat
. § 9 7 1 1 (c)(i v ).

“ [ E ]x tre m e m e n tal o r e m o tio n a l d istu rb a n c e ” is s p e c if ica lly l i s t ed as a mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance t hatPenns y l vani a j ur i es m ay cons i derw hen dec i di ng w hethert o i m pos e the dea t h penal t y . 42 Pa. C ons . St at
. § 9711( e) ( 2)

. H er e, t he C om m onw eal t h does not di s put e t hat even t he m os t cur s or y s ear ch w oul d h av e y ie l ded ev iden ce o f T h o m as’ lon g h ist o ry o f m en tal il lnes s. T h is hist o ry i ncl u d es a c our tcomm i t m entt o a ps y chi atr i c hos pi t al w hen T hom as w as s i xt een, and a me n tal h eal t h eval uat i on w hen he w a s e ig h te e n th a t d e s c ri b e d h im a s h a v in g “ re s p o n s e s . . . sim ilar to th o se in th e lit e ra tu r e d e sc rib in g p a ra n o id s c h i z o p h r e n i a , ” a n d “ s e r i o u s m e n t a l d i s tu rb a n c e .” A d d itio n a l l y, h a d c o u n se l so u g h t to e x a m in e T h o m a s’ m e n tal h e a lth p rio r to h i s s e n t e n c i n g , t h e r e s u l t s l i k e l ywo u l d h a v e r e v e a l e d s o me m en ta l i l l nes s : acc or di ng t o a court
- or der ed ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on conduct ed the dayof Thom as ’ s ent enci ng, [a] t t he pr e s e nt t i me, t hi s D e fe nd a nt c a n be best d e sc rib e d a s s u f

f e rin g f r o m S e v e re M u lti p le P e rsona l i t yD i sorder s, and con t i nu es t o indi cate S o c io p a th ic, R e a c tiv e P a ra n o id , an d S c h izo id

### 40 T ra its. T h e re is c o n tin u e d in d ica tio n , b o th cl i ni cal l yas w el l as on ps y chol ogi cal t es t i ng, of a gr eatdeal of under l y i n g ps y chopathol ogyw hi ch is c le a r ly fo c u se d in th e se x u a l ar e a , w ith in d ica tio n o f

s e x u a l id e n tityc o n f

u sio n , h o stility and ambi val ence t ow ar d w om en, and i ndi cat i on of v erypri m i t i ve, bri t t l e, and i nad equ at e con t rol s. P lac e d in th e h a n d s o f

e f f e c ti v e c o u n se l, th e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat t hi s evi dence w oul d have per s uaded atl eas tone j u r o rt o i m p o s e l i f

e i m p r i s o n m e n tr a t h e rt h a n t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y.

2.
T he C om m onw eal t h ar gues thateven a s s um i ng t hat e f f e c tiv e c o u n se l w o uld ha v e d isc o v e re d T h o m a s’ m e n tal h e a lth h isto ry , n o p re

ju d ice c o u l d h ave re su lted b e c a u se T h o m a s w o u ld nothave l ethi s couns el pr es entanym i t i g ati n g evi dence

. T he C o m m o n w e a lth a ss e rts th a t Schr i r o v. Landri gan , 550 U

. S. 465 (20 0 7 ), and T

aylor v. H

orn , 504 F. 3d 416 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , are in d istin g u ish a b le f

ro m th e p re se n t ca se a n d re q u ire u s to h o ld t hatt her e i s no pr ej udi ce he r e. W e di s agr ee. I n Landri gan , t he Su prem e C ou rt con front ed for t he fir st ti m e “ a situ ati o n in w h ich a cli en t i n terfere s w ith co u n sel’s e f f o rt s to p re s e n t m itig a tin g e v id e n c e to a s e n te n c i n g c o u rt .” 550 U

. S

. at 478. T her e, t he pet i t i oner ’ s couns el i nfor m ed the t r i al cour tt hathe had a dvi s ed the pet i t i oner“verys t r ongl y ” that

### 41 th e p e titio n e r s h o u ld p re s e n t m itig a tin g e v id e n c e . Id

. at469. T he tr i al cour tquest i oned the pet i t i oner , and the pet i t i oner confi r m ed thathe i ns t ruct ed hi s couns el nott o pr es ent m i t i gati ng evidence an d thathe u nd ers t oo d th e con sequen ces. Id

. W h en the p eti ti o n er’s co u n sel w as pro ff ering , at t h e c o u rt ’s r eques t , t he mi t i gat i ng ev idence he i nt ended t o pr es ent , t he pet i t i oneri nt errupt ed mul t i pl e t i m es t o ex p la i n aw ayt he m it igating ch ara cterist ics o f th e ev iden ce , an d also to rea ff irm th a t h e d id n o t w a n t th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d in c o u rt
. Id

. at470. Fi nal l y , att he end of

t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he pet i t i oners t at ed t hat“I t hi nk i f y ou w ant t o gi ve me t he dea t h penal t y , j us tbr i ng i t r i ght on. I ’ m r eady for i t
. ” Id

. A p p ly ing A E D P A ’s defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , t he Supr eme Court d et er m i ned t hatt he st at e appe l l at e courtr eas onabl yconcl uded thatt he pet i t ion er had r efus ed t o al l ow t he pr es ent at i on of m i t i gat i ng evi dence , and t hi s r efus al pr event ed anys how i ng of pr ej udi ce. Id

. at475–77.
I n Tayl or , t he pet i t i onerw r ot e a c onfes s i on l et t ert o t he pol i ce, w hi ch s t at ed that“I w antt he maxi m um s ent ence . ” 504 F. 3d at421. A tt he pet i t i oner ’ s g u il t ypl ea he ar i ng, t he p eti ti o neragr eed w i t h hi s couns el ’ s s t at ement t hathe had i ns t ruct ed couns el nott o cont actanyw i t nes s es ort o cal l any m edi cal per s on n el w h o had s poken t o hi m , and thathe u n d e rsto o d th a t “th e lik e lyre su lt w ill b e im p o sitio n o f th e d e a th penal t y . ” Id

. A t sen tenc ing , the p eti ti o n er inf o rm ed the c o u rt th a t h e d e c lin e d to p re s e n t a n y m itig a tin g e v id e n c e . Id

. at422. T h e c o u rt th e n s e n te n c e d th e p e titio n e r t o d e a th

. Id

. I n t he

### 42 su b se q u e n t sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief p ro c e e d in g s, th e sta te co u rtco n d u cted an ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g , d en ied t h e p eti ti o n er’s r eques tforr el i ef, and found t hat t he pet i t i onerhad di s cus s ed the pos s i bi l i t y of pr es ent i ng t es t i m onyof m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s w i t h hi s couns el , t hat t he pet i t i oner r ej ect ed the i dea of doi ng s o, a n d th a t th e p e tit io n e r p e rso n a llyc a lled p o ten tial w itn e ss e s to te ll th e m n o t to a tte n d h is s e n te n c in g . Id . at 4 2 4 . T h e sta te appel l at e courtaff

i r m ed thes e fi ndi ngs and the court ’ s hol di ng. Id .; see al

so C om m onw eal th v. Tayl or , 7 1 8 A

. 2 d 7 4 3 (P a. 19 9 8 ). Ap p l y i n g AE DP A’ s d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w, we det er m i ned i n Tayl orthat the s tat e p o st- co n v ict ion co u rt ’s fac tual and l egal concl us i ons w er e re as onabl e. 504 F. 3d at452, 455. C om par i ng t he pet i t i onert o t he o n e i n Landri gan , we agr eed w i t h t he pet i t i onert hat“he w as notb ell iger entand obs t ruct i ve i n cour t l i ke t he defe ndanti n Landri gan . . . , butt he r ecor d s how s t hathi s det er m i nat i on nott o pr es entm i ti gat i ng evi dence w as j us tas s t r ong. ” Id

. at455. A s a r es ul t , “w hat ever couns el coul d have uncover ed, [t he pet i t i oner ] w oul d nothave per m i t t ed anyw i t nes s es t o t es t i fy , and w as t her efor e not pr ej udi ced byanyi nadequa cyi n couns el ’ s i nves t i gat i on or deci s i on nott o pr es entm i t i gat i on evi dence

. ” Id

. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth c laim s th a t li k e th e p e tit io n e rs in Landri gan and Tayl or , T h o m a s w o u ld h a v e p re v e n ted h is couns el fr om pr es ent i ng anym i t i gat i ng evide n ce, no m at t er w h a t itw a s, th u s o b v iatin g a n yp o ss ib ili ty o f p re ju d ice . It p o in ts t o T hom as ’ conductathi s s ent enci n g fo rfac tual s uppor t
. Y et

### 43 b a se d o n o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd , w e b e liev e th a t b o th Landri gan and T

aylor di ffe rs i gni fi cant l yfr om t he pr es entcas e. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , A E D PA defe r ence pur s uant to Sect i on 2254( d) const rained fede r al r evi ew i n bot h Landri gan and Ta y l or . It d o e s n o t a p p ly h e re . See supra P a rt IV .A . T h is m eans t hatw hi l e th e P en ns y l vani a court s ’ det er m i nat i ons of f a c tu a l i s s u e s “ s h a l l b e p r e s u me d t o b e c o r r e c t , ” we r e v i e w de novo t he mi xed ques t i on of l aw and fa ctof w hetherT hom as can s h o w p re ju d ic e . See Appel , 250 F. 3d at210.
M o v in g to th e m e rits of th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s a rg u m e n t, w e cannot concl ude t hat T hom as w oul d have i nt er fer ed w i t h t he pr es ent at i on of al l m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. T hom as ’ col l oquyat s ent enci ng focus ed narr ow l yon w hether he w ant ed t o t ake the s t and hi m s el f: [ T H O M A S ’ C O U N S E L ] : M r . T h o m a s , yo u re c a ll d u rin g th e c a s e in c h ief th a t w e in q u ire d a s to wh e t h e r o r n o t y o u wa n t e d t o t e s t i f yo n y o u ro wn b e h a lf. D o y o u re c a ll th a t? [ T H O M A S ]: Y e a h , I d o . W h yd o I a n sw e r a ll t hes e ques t i on s befor e? W e done be overt hat al r eady

. N o, I don’ tw antt o geton t he s t and. T H E C O U R T : W el l , t hi s i s a di ffe r entpor t i on. [TH O M A S] : I s t i l l don’ tw antt o geton t he s t and.

### 44 T H E C O U R T : U nd er no co nd i t i on s? [TH O M A S] : N o. T H E C O U R T : I s t hi s y ourdeci s i on? [T H O M A S ]: Y es, i ti s. T H E C O U R T : D i d y o u di s cus s i tw i t h y our l aw y er , M r . W at s on? [T H O M A S ]: Y es. T H E C O U R T : A n d y o u a lre a d y to ld h im , I w o u ld l i ke t o r epea t , buti t ’ s y our deci s i on nott o t ake the s t and att hi s penal t ystag e o f t he hea r i ng oreven t o pr es ent anyevi dence

. I s t haty ouri ndepende nt and vol unt arydeci s i on? [T H O M A S ]: Iti s. W e a ck n o w ledg e w h at i s p lai n lyo f re co rd: t h e se n tenc ing co u rt d i d a s k T h o m a s to c o n f ir m th a t “ it’ s y o u r d e c is io n n o t to
. . . pr es ent any evi dence

. ” Y et w e cannoti gnor e thatt hi s ques t i on w a s p a rt o f

a c o m p o u n d q u e stio n th a t als o a sk e d T h o m a s to r ea f f i r m th a t “ i t ’ s y o u r d e c i s i o n n o t t o t a k e t h e s t a n d , ” and t he r emai nderof t he ques t i ons i n t he col l oquyonl yconce r ned T h o m a s ’ d e s i r e t o t e s t i f y o n h i s o w n b e h a l f

. A c c o r d i n g l y, T hom as ’ t er s e ans w ert o t hi s i nqui r y does not di s pl ayan i nt ent to in ter f e re w ith th e p re se n tatio n o f m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e th a t is

### 45 s tr o n g enough t o pr ecl ude a s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. T o us , t he on l yt hing t hat T ho m as cl earl y dis cl ai m ed at hi s col l oq uyw as a des i r e t o t es t i fyon hi s ow n behal f.
T h e f o ll o w u p q u e s tio n s a s k e d b yth e C o m m o n w ea lth fa re even w or s e. A t m os t , T hom as ’ r es pons es i ndi cat e thathe had no w i t nes s es t o cal l athi s s ent enci ng: [TH E C O M M O N W E A L T H ] : M r . T hom as , do y o u h a v e a n yw itn e ss e s th a t y o u w o u ld lik e to c a ll att hi s t i m e att hi s s t age of t he pr ocee di ng? [TH O M A S] : N o. [TH E C O M M O N W E A L T H ] : A r e y ou s ur e about th a t? [TH O M A S] : N o. [* * *] T H E C O U R T : Y ou m ean no, y ou don’ thave a ny w itn e ss e s to c a ll. [ T H O M A S ]: R ig h t. [T H E C O M M O N W E A L T H ]: T here i s no w i t ness in e x iste n c e y o u w o u ld lik e to c a ll, sir, a t th is t i m e. Y es orno?

### 46 [TH O M A S] : I s ai d no.
T h is ex ch an g e pro v ides n o su p p o rt fo r th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ar gum entt hatT hom as w oul d have pr event ed t he pr es ent at i on of al l m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. N ordoes T hom as ’ ref us al t o s t i pul at e t o hi s age a nd e d u c a t i o n t i p t h e s c a l e s i n t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h ’ s f a v o r . We agr ee w i t h t he C om m onw eal t h t hatT hom as ’ age a nd educa t i on a re re lativ e lyin n o c u o u s f a c ts, a n d T h o m a s’ d e c isi o n n o t to st ip u la te to th e m is o d d . W e c a n n o t ag re e , h o w e v e r, th a t th is pr oves t hatT hom as w as not pr ej udi ced. W hi l e Thom as ’ r efus al to stip u late is co n sis ten t w ith th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s p o sitio n , it is eq u all yco n sist en t w ith o ther sc en a ri o s that the re co rd s uppor t s . I ndeed, T hom as has cl ai m ed thathe di d not under s t and the natur e and purpos e of mi t i gat i ng evidence. T hom as ’ fai lure t o s t i pul at e coul d be vi ew ed as a s y m pt om of t hi s fundament al m i s under s t andi n g , and notas an af fi r m at i ve decl ar at i on agai ns tt he pr es ent at i on of al l m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. I n s um , thi s cas e bea r s no r es embl ance t o Landri gan and Tayl or . T hom as neveri ndi cat ed thathe w oul d i nt er fer e w i t h or ot herw i s e pr eve n t t he pr es ent at i on of al l m i t i gat i ng evi dence , r egar dl es s of i t s natur e. A t s ent enci ng, T hom as ’ col l oquy f o c u se d o n tw o v e ry sp e c if ic q u e stio n s: 1 ) w h e th e r h e d e sire d to t es t i fyon hi s ow n behal f; and 2) w hetherhe had a nyot her w i t nes s es t o cal l

. T hat he answ er ed “no” t o bot h does notm ean t hat , had ef

fec t i ve counse l pr epar ed m ent al heal t h evi dence , he

### In as se ss ing T ho m as ’ ab ilit y to showprejud ic e und er 9 

### Str i c kland , the on ly

qu es ti onwe answer here i s whether Thom a s woul d have wa i ve d hi s ri ght t o pr e s e nt mi t i gat i ng ev id en c e h a d h e b eenrep resen tedb y ef f ectiv e co un sel. A s a resu lt, w e o f

f er n o o p in io no nw h eth er a w aiv er o f th e rig h t to p resen t mitig atin g ev id en ce m u st b e “in f

o rm edan dkn o w in g .” See Landr i

gan , 550 U.S. at

47 9 (“W e have never i mp o sed an ‘i nf orm ed and kno w in g’ re qu ir em ent upo n a defend ant’ s deci si onno t t o introdu ce evidence .” ). 47 w oul d have a l s o decl i ned i t s pr es ent at i on. T her efor e, w e ca nnot c o n c lu d e th a t T h o m a s’ c o n d u c t at s e n te n c in g e lim in a ted a ll pos s i bi l i t yt hatcouns el ’ s per for m ance caus ed hi m pr ej udi ce. 9
3.
T he C om m onw eal t h al s o ar gues t hatT hom as w as not p re ju d ice d b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e o f T h o m a s’ m e n tal h e a lth h isto rya g g ra v a ted m o re th a n it m iti g a ted

. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth poi nt s t o var i ous negat i ve s t at ement s i n T hom as ’ ps y chol ogi cal e v a lu a tio n s, in c lu d in g th o se th a t d e sc rib e d h im a s h a v in g “ lit tle un derst and i ng of h is soci al and m oral res po nsi bil i t y , ” and as a “sexua l dev i at e w i t h sadis t ic t end encies

. ” S om e of these evaluat i on s even recom m end ed T ho m as’ i ncarcerat i on becau se “he i s a s er i ous t hr eati n t he comm uni t y , ” and “a danger ous c rim in a l.” T h e C o m m o n w e a lth a lso n o te s th a t ce rta in ev alua ti o n s d o cu m en ti n g T h o m as’ m e n tal h ea lth h ist o ry re f e re n c e d tw o o th e r c rim in a l in c id e n ts th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth

### 48 di d noti nt r oduce a ts ent enci ng: 1) i n 1975, T hom as s odom i zed fi ve pol i ce hor s es w i t h a br oom handl e, ki l l i ng one of them; and 2) i n 1 97 6, T h o m a s sex uall yassaul t ed an i nfan tgir l

. A s a r es ul t , the C o m m onw eal t h ques t i ons notonl yw hethert he in c lu sio n o f

T h o m a s’ m e n tal h e a lth h isto ryc o u ld h a v e p o ss ib ly change d t he r es ul t of hi s s ent enci ng, butal s o w hethereff ect i ve co u n sel w o u ld h av e e v en intr o d u ce d an yo f it f o r the ju ry ’s cons i der at i on. W hi l e w e agr ee w i t h t he C om m onw eal t h t hat so m e of T h o ma s ’ me n t a l h e a l t h h i s t o r yp a i n t s h i m i n a n e g a t i v e l i g h t , we ar e not convi nced t hat t he death penal t yi s a fa it a c c o m p li even i f evi dence of Thom as ’ m ent al heal t h hi s t or yw er e ava i l abl e at s ent enci ng. C er t ai nl y , evi dence t hatT hom as i s a sad is t i c and danger ous s exual d evi at e w ho comm i t t ed atl eas tone pr i oract t hat bear s r es embl ance t o t he cr i m e i n t hi s cas e i s notm i t i gat i ng. A d d it ion all y , the q u an ti ty o f ag g rav ati n g ev iden ce that the ju ry al r eadydi d cons i derw as s i gni fi cant
. B utT ho m as’ m ent al heal t h hi s t or yact s as a comm on t hr ead t hat t i es al l t hi s evi dence to g e th e r. A s in g le ju ro r m a yw e ll h a v e b e liev e d th a t th is uni fy i ng fac t orexpl ai ned T hom as ’ hor r i fi c ac t i ons i n a w ayt hat l ow er ed hi s cul pabi l i t yand ther ebydi m i ni s hed t he j us t i fi cat i on f o r im p o s in g th e d e a th p e n a lty. See P enr y v. Lynaugh , 49 2 U. S. 3 0 2 , 3 1 9 (19 8 9 ) (“‘[E ]v iden ce ab o u t th e d ef en d an t’ s backgr ound and cha r act eri s r el evantbeca us e of t he bel i ef, l ong h e ld b y th is s o c iety , tha t d e f e n d a n ts w h o c o m m it crim in a l ac ts t hat ar e at t r i but abl e . . . t o emot i onal and ment al pr obl ems, m ay b e less c u lpab le t h an d ef en d an ts w h o h av e n o s u c h ex cu se.’”

### 49 ( quot i ng Ca l i

f o r n i a v . Br o wn , 479 U

. S. 538, 545 ( 1987) (O ’C on no r, J., concu rr i ng )) ). T herefore, t here exis t s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat eff ect i ve counse l w oul d have c hos en t o pr es entevi dence of T hom as ’ m ent al heal t h hi s t or y , and that i t s present at i on w ou l d have conv i nced at l east on e j uror to s ent ence T hom as t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent
. W hi l e Thom as ’ cr i m es w er e hei nous , and w hi l e i tm aybe thatt he deat h penal t yw as pr oper l y im p os ed, w e ca nnotconcl ude, on t hi s r ecor d, t hathe w as notpr ej udi ced byt r i al couns el ’ s al l eged de fi ci enci es at s ent enci ng. V.
W e a g r e e wi t h t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t t h a t Th o ma s cannot p r e v a i l o n t h e t h r e e c l a i ms b e f o r e u s o n h i s a p p e a l , b u twe d isa g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t T h o m a s’ s e n ten c e sh o u ld be vac at ed. A l t hough t he abs ence of anyevi dence of a pr es ent enci ng i nves t i gat i on i n t hi s cas e s eems t o s ugges t t hatnone occurr ed, i t i s s i m pl y not s uffi ci ent t o over come the pr es um pt i on o f e f f e c tiv e n e ss th a t w e a re b o u n d to a p p ly

. A s a re su lt, w e w ill vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng deci s i on, and r emand t he cas e foran evi dent i ary hear i ng conce r ni ng t he ext ent , i f any , of T h o m a s’ c o u n se l’s p re -se n t encing i nv est ig a tiv e e f f o rts to o b tain m i t i gat i ng evi dence

.