## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3160 D EN NIS E ME R S ON, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. F RANK S HAW, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C452

—MarvinE . A sp en, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 18, 2008

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 30, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd S YKES an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Ci r c u i tJudg e . Den nis E m erson i s serving a term ofl i fe i m pri sonm ent a ftera f or m erI l l in ois go ver nor c o mmu t e d h i s d e a th s e n t e n c e , w h i c h s t e ms f r o m a m urder he co m m i tte d du ring an arm ed robber y. Em er so n h as pet i ti o ne d f o r a wri t o fhabe as c o r pus u n d er 28 U
. S. C. § 2254, cl ai m i ng that hi s counsel at h is se n te n c in g h ea rin g w as ine ffec tiv e a n d th at h e s h ou ld2 N o. 07

- 3160 be r ese ntenced. H e a rgues s pe c ifical l y that hi s co unsel shoul d have obj ecte d to the s entencing co urt’ s res ponse to a quest i on fro m the j ury and al so that hi s co unsel shoul d have o ffer ed the j ud ge a m or e e xpli ci t a nsw erto th e jur y’s qu es tio n . On p os tc on vic tio n rev iew t h e Illino is A pp el l ate Courtr ej ecte d Em er son’ s a rgum ents, and on habeas re vi ew the di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed hi s pet i ti o n. We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und In19 79 D en n is E m er so n an d R ich ar d Jac ks on , his b r o the r, r o b b e d R o b e r tR a y a nd R a y ’ s gi r l f r i e nd , De l i nd a Byr d, a t g unpo i nt
. Em er so n a nd J ac k so n the n t i ed th e vi cti m s’ hands an d feet, and Em er son stabbed Ray tw i ce i n the chest w i th a p air o fsci sso rs . Ray survi ved by pla yi ng dead. A ccordi ng to Ray’ s t est i m ony, Em er son th e n a p p r o ac h e d B y r d a n d b r o u g h th i s h a n d s d o wn up on herbo dy i n a s tab b ing m oti on. Because Ray was pl ay i ngde ad, he di d no t l o o kdi r ec tly a t th e s tr i k e an d the r e f o r e di d n o ta c t ua l l y s e e Eme r s o n st ab By r d. E m er so n and J acks on then l eft the r oo m and setfi re to the b uil ding as they fl ed. Ray esca ped, but Byr d died f r o m a s tab wound. Em er so n was c ha r g ed wi ththe m urder of Byr d, att em pted m urder ofRay, ar m ed r o bb ery o fb o thv i ct i m s, a nd a r so n. This c ase ar ri ves here with a l ong and com pli cate d hi sto ry i n sta te and fe deralco urts , m osto fwh i ch i s no tN o. 07

- 3160 3

In E m erso n’s first trial, a jury con v icted him o n a l l cha rg es, 1 and Eme r s o n wa s s e n t e n c e d t o d e a th

. Ond i r e c ta p p e a l t he Il li nois Suprem e Court re verse d the convict ions and rem and ed for a n ew trial. People v . E m erso n , 455 N
. E.2d 41 ( Il l. 1983)
. In 19 85 Em er s on was r et ri ed, ag ai n c onvi c t ed o n a l l c ount s , an d again s ente nced to death. The Il li nois Suprem e Court affir m ed the convict ions f or m urd er, att em pted m urd er, and arm ed robb ery, a ffirm ed the death s ente nce, but revers ed the c onv ic

t i on f or ag gr ava t ed a rs on. Pe o p l e v . Eme rs on , 5 22 N
. E.2d 1109 (Ill . 19 8 7 ), cert
. den i ed, 4 8 8 U. S
. 9 0 0 ( 1 9 8 8 )
. T h e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cour tal s o uphe l d the di s m i s s al ofa pos t c onvi c t i on pet i t i on file d in 19 8 9
. P eo p le v. E m erso n , 6 0 6 N .E .2d 11 2 3 ( I l l. 1 9 9 2 ), cert
. den i ed, 50 7U .S. 1 0 3 7(19 9 3 ). re lev an t t o th is ap p ea l. E m er so n w as co n vic te d in Illin ois 1 sta te cou rt ofm urder, at tem pted m urder, and ar m ed ro b b er y, an d h e w a s s e n te n c ed to d ea th

. Se ePe opl ev. Em e rs on , 606 N .E .2d 11 23 (Ill . 199 2), cert. denied , 507 U
. S. 1037( 1993 )
. Em er son l ate r peti ti one d fo r a wri t o f ha b e a s c o r p u s u n d e r 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 b a s e d o n a s en te nc i ng i ss ue . The fede r aldi st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the p et itio n an d req u ire d res en te n c in g. U nited States ex rel
. E m erson v. G ram ley, 883 F. Su p p . 225 ( N .D
. Il l. 19 95 ), aff’d, 91 F.3d 89 8 (7th C ir. 1996). The Ci r cui t Cou r t o fCo o k Cou nty he l d a ne w se nt en cing he ar i ng, w hi chf o r m s the bas i s o fthi s a ppea l

. The he ar i ng f ocuse d on wh etherthe St ate co uld pro ve a par ti cul ar agg ra vati n g facto r

— m urder i n the cour se ofar m ed robbe r y . Em er so n’ s co uns elmai nt aine d dur i ngc l o sing ar gum ent that Em er son w as inel i gibl e forthe death p en alty becau s e t he State fai led to p rove th at E m er-4 N o. 07

- 3160

s o n “ a c t ua l l y s t r uc kthe f a t al bl o w tha tl e d t o De l i nd a Byr d’ s dea th

. ” The c o ur t i ns truct ed th e j ur y i n r el ev an t part: Befo re [ Em er son] m ay be found el i gibl e fora death se nt en ce u nd erthe l aw, the S ta te mustpr o ve the f ol l owing propos i ti ons: Fi rs t: That [ Em er son] w as 18 yea rs o l d oro l der

atthe t i m e o f th e co m m i ss i o n o fthe m ur der

. . . ; a nd S ec o nd: Tha t th e fo l l o wi ngs ta tu to r y a g g r av at i ng

f acto r exi sts : The murde r ed per so n was k i l l ed inthe c ou rs e o f an ot h er felon y if The m urdere d perso n w as act u all y k i l l ed by[ Em er so n] ; a nd I n pe r f o r m i ngthe a ct s w hich ca us ed th e dea tho fthe murde r ed per so n, [ Em er so n] acte d w i th the i ntent to ki l l the m urdere d perso n orwith the kno w l ed ge that hi s a cts cre ate d a st ro ng probabi l i ty ofdeath orgr eat bo di l y ha r m t o the murde r ed per so n; a nd The other fel ony w as ar m ed robber y. If y ou fi nd fro m yo ur co nsi derat i on o fal l the evidence that the fi rs t and s eco nd propos i ti on s h ave been p roved beyon d a reason able d ou bt, th en [E m erson] i s e l i gibl e fora death se ntence. I fyo u cannot unanim ousl y fi nd tha t both the fi rs t a nd s e c o nd p r o po s i t i o ns h a v e b e e n pr o v e d b e y o nd aN o. 07

- 3160 5

re aso nabl e doubt, then [ Em er son] i s n ot el i gibl e for a death sent ence. Du ring delibe ra ti ons the j ury sent a no te to the j ud ge as k i ng, “ Do we un con di ti o na l l y a cc eptthe pr ev i o us j udg m en ts o fg ui ltyf o r murde r, a tt empte d m ur dera nd two c ou nt s o fa r m ed r o bb ery a s f ac t when ev al ua ting thi s ca se orcan w e a pp l y r ea so n able doubt to the pri or g ui l tyv er di ct s? ” The c o ur t as k ed th e par ti es f or i nput on how i t s houl d res pond

. Defense cou n se l sugg est ed th at t h e j ury be instr ucted as f ol l ows: “You a re r equi re d to del iber ate so l el y b ase d on the evi de n c e yo u have he ar d i n thi s ca se i n ac co r dan ce w i thm y i ns truct i o ns . ” The St ate pro posed: “You hav e evidence be f or e y ou that [ Em e r s o n] h a s b e e n c o nv i c t e d o fa r med r o b b e ry , att em pted m urder and m urd er . You ar e t o consi der that e v i de nc e i n the e l i g ib i l i t y p ha s e . ” T he j ud g e i nstea d i ns truct ed th e j ur y : “Yo u ha ve r ec ei ve d the e vi den ce a nd j ury i nstr ucti ons. Pl eas e co nti nue to del iber ate
. ” N ei ther si de o bj ec te d to thi s i ns truct i o n. A fte r fur th erde l ibe r at i o n, th e jur y re tu rn ed a fin d in g t h at E m e r so nw as eligib le f orthe d ea th penal ty, and the cour t i m posed the death sente nce. On di r ec t appe alEm er so n, r epr es en te d b y hi s se ntenci ng co unsel, argued that the se ntenci ng co urt er re d by not answ er i ng the j ury’ s quest i on. H e c l ai m ed that ther e was a “st ro ng l i kel i hood” that “ the j ury f ai l ed to m ake i ts own determ in at i on a t e l i gibi l i ty as to w hether de fen dant had actual l y k i l l ed Byrd bec ause i t a ssum ed th at th is i s s u e h ad alre ad y b ee n d et er m in ed attria l.” Peop l ev. Em e rs on , 7 27N. E. 2d 30 2, 3 33 ( I l l

. 20 00 )
. Af fi r m i ng6 N o. 07

- 3160

Em ers on’ s ineffect ive- ass is tance
- of

- counsel cl aim al so ar ri ves 2 i n a c om pl i c at ed m ann er . W hi l e Em er s on’ s pos t c onvi c t i on pet ition was pe ndi ng i n I l l i noi s c our t s , the n- Gover nor Geor ge Ryan c om m ut ed Em er s on’ s death s en t en c e t o l i fe i n pr i s on. Under I l l i n o i s l a w, a s e n t e n c e o fl i fe i mpr i s o n me n ti s l awful o n ly if a ju ry co n cl u d es th a t a n ag g ra v a tin g fac to r e x i s t s . S ee 730 I LL . C OM P . S TAT . 5/5- 8- 1( a) ( 1) ( a) t o ( a) (1)( b ) ( c appi ng the sente nc e for first- d eg ree m u rd er at 6 0 y ear s un less an a g g rav atin g fac to r is fou n d ); P eo p le v. M ata , 8 4 2 N .E .2d 6 8 6 , 6 9 1 (I ll. 2 0 0 5 ). In lig h t o f M ata , the Illinois Supr em e Cour tal l owed Em er s on t o c h a l l e n g e h i s l i fe se n t e n c e in st a t e c o u r tb a se d o n th e ju r y ’s fi ndi ng thatthe ag gr ava t i ng f ac t or

— m u rd er in th e cou rse ofarm ed robb ery

— e x i s t e d. E m er so n ’s d ea th se n te n c e, th e Su p re m e C ou rtof Illin ois hel d tha t Eme r s o n wa i v e d thi s a r g ume nt b y f a i l i ng to ob j ec t t o th e c o u rt ’s re sp on se or offe r a s u b st an tiv ely di ffe r e ntp r o po s a l

. S pe c i fi c a l l y, the supreme c o ur ts t a t e d, “[W ] e a re unabl e t o disc er n any si gni fi cant di ffer ence be twe en the a ns wers ug g es te d b y de fen se c o uns ela nd the a nsw erthe ci rcui t co urt provi ded to the j ury. ” Id. E m er so n th en so u gh t p os t c on vic tio n relie f in Illin ois co ur ts , c l ai m i ngi ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns el

. The 2 I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtanal yzed E m er son’ s cl ai m under th e st an dar d s etf o r thi n St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U
. S. 66 8 ( 1984 )
. The co urt hel d that c ou n se l was not ineffective i n su ggestin g tha t t h e jud ge instru ct th e j ury to c on ti nue to del iber ate bas ed on the co urt’ s o ri gi nal in st ru c tio n s, an d th at in an y eve n t, “t h er e is n o re as on ab le pr o babi li ty th at, abs en t hi s co uns el ’ s er r o r s, de fen dan t woul d no t ha ve be ens en te nc ed to de ath. ” TheN o. 07

- 3160 7

c ou rtth er efo re affirm ed E m er so n ’s s en te n c e . T h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied lea ve to ap p ea l. Em er so n the n fi l ed a pet i ti o n f o r a wr i t o fhabe as c o r pus un de r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 4 , w hi c h the di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d. Anal y zing Em er so n’ s cl ai m unde r the Anti te r r o r i sm an d Effe c t i v e De a th Pe na l t y Ac t( “ AEDP A” ) , 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 254( d), the dist ri ct cour t hel d that the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Court’ s j ud gm ent w as nei ther contr ar y to, nor an u n re aso n ab le a p p lica tio n of, St r i ck l and

. Eme r s o n a pp e a l e d.

I I . Discussi on Em er son i s no t e nti tl ed to federa l habea s r el i efunder A E D PA un less he show s tha t the I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt’s d ec isio n w as “ c o n tr ar y t o, or in vo lve d an u n re as on ab le ap p li cation of, clearl y estab lis h e d Fed eral l aw , as de term i ned by the S up re m e Cour t ofthe U ni ted S tat es. ” 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 2 25 4( d) ( 1)
. A st at e co ur t’ s dec i si o n i s “c o nt r ar y to” c le a r ly estab li sh ed fed eral l aw “ifthe sta te cou rt ap p lies a rul e di ffer ent fro m the gov er ni ng l aw se t for th in [Sup rem e C ou rt ] c ases, or ifi t d ecid es a case differen tly than [ the S up re m e Cour t has ] done o n a s et of m ate ri al l y i nd i stingui shabl e fa c ts. ” Bel l v. Cone, 535 U
. S. 68 5, 69 4 (2 00 2). A co u rt ’s d ec isio n is an “u n r e a so n ab le appl i ca ti on” o fc l ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed fede r all aw “ i fthe sta te cour t co rr ectly i denti fi es the g ove rni ng l ega l pr i n c i p l e fr o m [ S u p r e me C o u r t ] d e c i s i o n s b u tu n r e a s o nab ly appli es i t t o the f acts o fthe parti cul arcas e. ” Id. Fo r Em er so n to pre vai l o n thi s l att erpro ng, he m ust s how that the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Court ’ s deci si on was “s o er ro ne-8 N o. 07

- 3160

ous a s to b e obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e. ” B adell e v. C orre ll, 4 5 2 F.3d 648, 654 (7th Cir. 2006). I n o th e r wo r d s , t he cour t’ s deci si on m u st “l [ i e] wello utsi de the boundari es of perm i ssibl e di ffer ences ofo pini on. ” Har daway v
. Young, 302 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2002). E m er so n ’s in effe c tiv e-a ss ist an c e-o f-c ou n se l cla im is contr ol l ed by “cl ear l y e stabl i shed Fe derall aw , ” nam el y, th e l eg alpr i nc i pl es s et f o r thi n St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on . St r i ck l and ’ s f ami l i art wo- st ep pr o ce ss f o r de te r m i ni ng whe thera c o un s e l ’ s a s s i s t a nc e fe l l b e l o w S i xth Am e nd

m ent s tandards i s a s fol l ows: First, the d efe nd an t m us t show that cou ns el’ s p erforman c e wa s de fi c i e nt
. T hi s r e qu i r e s s ho wi ngtha t counselm ade er ro rs so se ri ous that co unselwas not func ti o ni ngas the “ co uns el ” g ua r an te ed th e defen dan t by th e S i x th Ame n d me n t
. S e c o n d , th e d e fe n dan t m ust s how thatthe de ficient perf or m ance pr ej ud i ced th e d efense

. Th is r eq uires sh ow ing tha t cou ns el’ s er ro rs were so ser i ous a s t o depri ve the defendant of a f ai r tr i al, a tr i al w h os e r esul t i s r el i abl e. U nl ess a d efe n d an t m ak es bo th s h o w in gs , i t c an n otbe sa id th a tth e c o n v i c t i o n o r d e a ths e n t e n c e r e s ul t e d fr o m a breakd ow n in th e ad versary p rocess that rend ers the r esul t unre l i abl e. 466 U
. S. at68 7. U nd erthe St r i ck l ands t a n d a r d o n d i r e c tr e v i e w, “[j ] ud i ci alscruti ny o fco unsel ’ s per for m an ce m ust be hi ghl y defer enti al

. ” Id. at68 9. “[ A ] co urt m ust ind ulg e a str ong presum pti on that c ounsel ’ s co nd uct f al l s with inN o. 07

- 3160 9 th e w id e ra n ge of re as on a b l e p ro fes sio n al a ss ist an c e.” Id. O n hab e a s r e v i e w the b a r i s e v e n hi g he r . Eme r son
“ mus tdo mo r e than show h e wo ul d h a v e s a t i s fi e d St r i ck

l and ’ s t esti fhi s cl ai m were bei ng anal yze d i n the fi rs t instance
. . . . [ H ] e m ust s how thatthe [ I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Co ur t ] a pp l i e d Strickl andto the f acts o fhi s ca se i n an obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e m anner. ” B el l , 53 5 U
. S. at 698

- 99; see also H o l m a n v. G ilm o re, 126 F.3d 876 , 881 (7th C ir. 1997 ) (“ St r i ck l andbui l ds i n an el em ent o fdefer ence to counsel ’ s cho i ces i n conducti ng the l i ti gat i on; § 2 254( d)( 1) add s a l aye r ofr espect fo r a state cour t’ s a pp l i cati on o f th e legalstan d ard

. ”). Em er son does not argue that the Il l i noi s co urt’ s deci si on w as “co ntra ryto ” S up re m e Cour t pr ecedent. H e a rg u es i ns t e a d t ha tth e I l l i no i s c o ur tu nr e a s o nab l y a pp l i e d St r i ck

l andi n rej ecting hi s ineffecti ve- ass i sta nce- of

- coun sel cl ai m . W e r evi ew d e n ovo the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f Em er so n’ s pet i ti o n. Julia n v . B a rtley, 49 5 F
. 3d 487, 49 1 (7th C ir. 2007). Em er so n fi r sta r g ue s th athi s co uns elwas de fici en t be ca us e he di d no t r eque stth at th e j udg e cl ar i fy tha t th e j ury w as ask ed to determ i ne wh etherthe St ate had prove d beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt that Em er son ac tu all y k i l l ed Byrd. I n other w or ds, wh i l e Em er son concedes that the o ri gi nal i nstr uction was l ega l l y c or re ct, h e c o n t e n d s th a tth e j ur y wa s n o n e th e l e s s c o n fu s e d

. He ar g ue s th athi s co uns els ho ul d ha ve , b ut d id not, a skthe j u d ge to t r y t o cle ar u p th at co n fu sio n, an d th at th is om i ssi on dep riv ed hi m o fhi s co nsti tuti onalr i ght t o effecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel

. The I l lin ois A pp el l ate10 N o. 07

- 3160

B ol l enb ach v. Un i te d S tat es , 32 6 U. S. 60 7 ( 19 46 ) , whi c h Em er s on 3 ci tes , is n o t to the cont rary. In that c ase , the Suprem e Court r e v e r se d a c o n v i c t i o n w h e r e th e ju d g e r e sp o n d e d to th e ju r y ’s quest ions in a m anner that was “palpab ly er roneous. ” Id. at 611. H ere, Em ers on concedes thatthe j ury i ns t r uc t ions w ere accurat e, a n d th e ju d g e’s r efe re n ce t o t h e se in str u ct io n s w a s p ro p er . S ee Wee ks , 52 8 U .S
. at23 1 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng Bol l enbac h on these g ro u n d s). Court rej ecte d thi s a rgum en t. The co urt concl ud ed that the j ud ge’ s o ri gi nal i nstr ucti ons f ai rl y e ncom pa sse d wha tEme r s o n s ub mi t t ed hi s c o un s e l s ho ul d h a v e s a i d. The cour t furtherhel d that e ven if c ou nselwere i neffecti ve , “ th er e i s no r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t, abs en t hi s co u n sel’ s e rr or s, defendant w oul d not hav e be en se n te n c ed to d ea th .” Und e r our d e fe r e nt i a l r e v i e w, the I l l i no i s c o ur t ’ s a pp li cation of St r i ck l andw a s n o tobj e c t i v e l y u n r e a s o n ab l e . We h av e re p ea te d ly h eld th at j u d ge s a re w ell w ith in t h eir di sc r et i o n t o r efera j ur y b ac kt o the o rigi na l i ns truct i o ns w hen the j ury evi nces possibl e co nfusi on. E.g
. , U nited St at e s v. Sp an , 170 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 1999); U nited Sta tes v. B eve rly, 913 F.2d 33 7, 35 1-5 2 (7th C ir. 19 90 ); U nited Sta tes v. M ealy, 851 F.2d 89 0, 9 0 1

- 0 2 ( 7t h C ir. 19 88 ); ac co r d We e ks v. Ange l one, 5 28 U. S
. 2 25, 2 34 ( 20 00 )
. As l o nga s th e 3 or igin ali nstr ucti ons accura tel y a nd understa nd abl y s tat e the l aw , r efer ring a j ury backto tho se i nstr ucti on s can be the m ostprudent co urse f or a t leas t tw o re aso ns. Fi rs t, j ur y i ns truct i o ns o fte n c o m e f r o m pa tt ern ins truct i o ns that have been a n aly zed byappel l ate j ud ges i n actual c as es . Se e, e . g. , I l l

. Pa tt ern J ur y I ns tr
. , Cr i m . 7B. 06 ( defi ni ng d eath pen alty el igibil ity); s eeals o P eop lev. Kun tu , 75 2N o. 07

- 3160 11

To the ex tentEm ers on argues that the j ury w as als o confused 4 aboutwhethe r i thad t o re t ry E m er s on on al l c har ge s , Em er s on can n o t show prej ud ic e. The j ury’ s finding thatEm ers on w as death- el igi b le strongly s ugg es ts thati t al so bel ie ved that E m erso n w as g u ilty o n th e u nd erly ing cou nts. N .E .2d 38 0, 39 7 (I ll. 20 01 ) (h old in g th at a s u b st an tia lly s i m i lar ve rd ict form co rre c tly st at ed th e la w an d cle ar ly r equi r ed th e j ur y t o fi nd tha t defen dan t ac tu al l y k i l l ed th e vi ct i m )
. De vi at i ngfr o m the se i ns truct i o ns c r ea te s th e ne edl es s r i sk o f r ev er sibl e er r o r . S ec o nd, j ury qu es ti o ns can b e am b iguous. I n thi s ca se, f orexam ple , ther e a re at l ea stt wo pl ausibl e i nt er pr et at i o ns o fthe j ur y ’ s que st i o n: I t i s pos sib le, as Em er son conte nd s, thatthe j ury w as confused ove r w h ether i t had to fi nd bey ond a r eason able d ou bt th at E m erson actu all y kill ed By rd

. A lternati vel y, and m or e l i kel y, the j ury w as c on fused ove r whet h e r i th a d t o r e t r y E me r s o n f o r th e u n d e r l y i ng c rim es . N o m at te r w h ich int er p re ta tio n is co rre c t, d ire cti ng the j ury back to the cor re ct i nstr ucti ons answered both questi ons. 4 Em er so n’ s attor ne y e ss en ti al l y s ug g es te d tha t th e j ud ge fol low this gene rall y acce p ted resp ons e to j ury que st i o ns o fthi s so r t; thi s ca nno t amoun t to de fi ci en t p erform an ce u nd er St r i ck l and . W e h old t h a t t h e Illino is A pp el l ate Courtdi d not unre aso nabl y a pp l y St r i ck

l and in con clud ing tha t E m e r s o n’s cou ns el w as no t ineffecti ve. W e a l so concl ud e that the I l l i noi s co urt did notunrea sonab l y ho l d that Em er son f ai led t o sat i sfy St r i ck l and ’s12 N o. 07

- 3160 p rej u d ice req u ire m en t. See 46 6 U. S
. at6 87
. De m o ns tr at i ng pr ej u d i c e i n th i s c a s e r e q u i r e s a t l e a s t t wo s t e p s, a nd Em er son cannot satisfy ei ther

. Fi rs t, ther e m ust be a re as on ab le p ro b ab ility th at “e ffec tiv e” c o u n se l co u ld ha ve a l te r ed th e j udg e’ s r es po ns e to the j ur y ’ s que st i o n. Otherwise, the se ntenci ng hea ring would have pl aye d o utthe s ame way . Thi s is a di ffi cul t sh o wi ngc o ns i der i ng th atthe j ur y was pr o per l y i ns truct ed an d the s en te nc i ng co ur t pr o per l y e xe r ci se d i ts di sc r et i o n in ins truct i ng the j ur y t o r e fe r b a c kt o the o r i g i na l i ns tr ucti on s . S e c o nd , an d e ve n mor e di ffi cult, Em er so n musts ho w tha t i fthe j u d ge ga ve th e re s p o n se E m er so n n ow su gg es ts sh ou ld ha ve bee n given, i t is reason ably prob able tha t the j ury w oul d have found that the ag gr avat i ng factordi d not exi st

— tha ti s , tha tEm er so n di d n o ta c t ua l l y k i l l By r d. Ra y t e s t i fi e d th a th e s a w E me r s o n a p p r o a c h B y r d r i g ht afterEm er son stabbed hi m with s ci sso rs, and al so that he sa w Em er son bring hi s hand s v i ol entl y down up on Byrd . The e vi dence al so est abl i shed that Byrd die d fro m st ab w ou n d s. B as ed on th es e fa c ts , th e Illino is cour t’ s deci si on r ega rdi ng the l ack ofprej ud i ce doe s no t “l[ ie] w ellouts id e t h e bou nd aries ofperm issible differences ofo pini on. ” Har daway, 302 F
. 3d at 762. A ccor dingl y, Em er son’ s fi rs t a rgum ent f ai l s u n d er ei therpro ng o f St r i ck l and

. Em er son al so m ake s a second, co ncl usor y a rgum ent that ha d hi s at to r ne y o bj ec te d t o th e c our t’ s i ns truct i o n, he co u ld h a ve argu ed that the j ud ge erred un d er Peop l ev. Chil ds , 636 N
. E
. 2d 5 3 4 ( Ill

. 1994), an d the ap p ell ate cou rt coul d have r equi re d res entenc in g. The I l l i noi s Ap pel l ateN o. 07

- 3160 13 Court rej ecte d Em er son’s ar gum ent b y c oncl ud i ng tha t Em er son w oul d hav e been sente nced to death even abs en t his cou ns el’ s error. C hil ds involved a defen d an t on t r ial f or arm ed robbery an d mur de r . T he j ur y wa s i ns t r uc t e d o n the fe l onym urder r ul e , b utthe t r i a l c o ur tdi d n o ts ub mi ta v e r di ct form on fel ony m u r d e r. Du ring de liberat ions th e j ury asked , “C an th e d efend an t be guil ty of arm e d rob bery and v ol untary or i nvol untary m ansl aughter or m ust m u rd er be the o nl y o pti on with ar m ed robber y?” Ch i l ds , 63 6 N
. E. 2d at5 38
. T he jud ge adv i se d the j ur y t o c o nt i nue to del iber ate
. The I l l i noi s S up re m e Court note d that und erI l l i noi s l aw , “[ a] tr i alco urt m ay exer ci se its disc re ti on a nd pro perl y decl i ne to a nsw era j ury’ s inquir i es wher e th e i ns truct i o ns a r e read il y unde r st an dab l e an d suffi ci entl y explain the re l evantl aw . ” Id. at 539. H ow ever, th e sup rem e co ur t r equi r ed r et r i ali n Chil ds be c au se it concl ud ed that the j ury’ s quest i on “ m an ifest ed j uror con fusion on a sub stan tive l e g a l issue,” tha t is, w he th er a fi ndi ngo fg ui l t f o r a r m ed r o bb ery r equi r es a fi ndi ng of guil t for m urd er un d er the d octrine off e lo ny m urd er. Id. at54 0. Chil ds does notsw ee p as br oadl y a s Em er son cl ai m s; ot h er Il lin ois d ec isio n s m ak e c lea r th at Il lin ois w ou ld u p h old th e s en te n c e u n d er th e c irc u m st an c es of th is ca se . F o r e xa m pl e, i n Peop l ev. Pul l i am , 68 0 N .E .2d 34 3 (Ill. 1997 ) , wh i ch ci tes Chil ds , the j ury ask ed the j ud ge w hat i ts h o u l d d o i fi tc o u l d n o tr e a c h a u n a n i mo u s d e ci si o n. T he I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt end orsed the trial cou rt’s dec i si o n t o r eferthe j ur y t o i ts o rigi na l i ns truct i o ns14 N o. 07

- 3160 be ca us e “the i ns truct i o ns g i ve n t o the j ur y c o nc erni ng u n an im ity w er e re ad ily u n d er st an d ab le a n d su fficie n tly expla i ned the r el evantl aw . ” Id. at3 55
. Li k ewi se , i n P eople v. M cD ona ld, 66 0 N
. E.2 d 832 ( I l l

. 19 95 ) , wh i ch al so ci tes C hil ds, the j ur y a s k e d the j ud g e ab o ut the de fi ni t i o n of “m itig at in g fa c to rs .” T h e Il lin ois Su p re m e C ou rtag ain up hel d the j ud ge’ s r efe re nce t o i ts or i gi nal i nstr ucti ons, co nc ludi ng, “ [ g ] i ve n the c l ar i tya nd s uffi ci en cyo fthe i nstr ucti on o n m i ti gat i on, defendant suffer ed no prej ud i ce w h en th e t ria l ju d ge refe rre d th e jur or s t o th at ins tr u c tio n .” Id. a t 85 0. F i na l l y, i n P eoplev. Reid, 55 4 N
. E.2 d 174 ( Ill. 19 90 ) , th e j ur y as k ed whethe r i t co ul d fi nd th e d efenda nt gu ilty of on e c h ar ge d cr im e b u t n otth e o th er . Th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtu p h eld th e jud ge ’s fa ilu re t o re sp on d : “It i s a pp ar ent the [ tr i al ] co urt conc lu d ed that the instr uctio n s s u fficie n tly ap p ri s e d t h e jur y of t h e a p p lica b le l aw . Thus, under the ci rcum sta nces, the [ tr i al ] court did not abuse i ts disc re ti on b y r efer ring the j ury to the wri tte n i nstr ucti ons. ” Id. at18 0. H er e, th e jur y w as sp ec ifica lly in st ru c t e d t h at it m ust fi nd that “[ t] he m urdere d per son w as actual l y k i l l ed by [Em erson ]. ” Suc h an i ns tru ction is “read il y un d erst an d ab le a n d su ffici e n tly ex p lain [s] t h e re lev an t la w .” Chil ds , 636 N .E .2d at53 9; se e also Kuntu , 752 N
. E.2 d at 397. A c c o rd in gly , i t w as n otu n re as on ab le for th e Illino is A pp el l ate Court to concl ud e that Em er son coul d not s how p rej ud ice un d er St r i ck l and eve n i fhi s co unselhad pre-N o. 07

- 3160 15

E m erso n’s C hild s a r g u m e n tin e ffe c tp o si t s t h a ta c o u n se l ’s 5 f ail ur e t o ob j e c ti s pe r s e i ne ffe c t i ve whe ne ve r a s t a t e a pp ellate co u rt m igh t have r eversed on di re c tappe al ha d the att orney prese rved the argum ent. This theory creat es an a nom alous res ult und er Str i ckl and and AEDPA be c aus e peti

t i on e r s wou l d f a c e a m or e l e ni e nts t a nd a r d o n habeas re vi ew thanthe y f ac ed o n di re c t or pos t c onvi c t i on re vi ew. Take thi s c as e as ane xa m pl e. Had hi s a ttorn ey pr es er ved the ar gum ent, Em ers on w ould have obtained res ente ncing o n direc t revie w i n st ate cou rt o n ly by prevaili ng un der C hi l ds

. On ha b eas rev iew , u nd er E m erso n’s the or y , he sh ou ld ob tain res ente ncing wh enever there is a cha n ce tha th e c oul d h a ve prevaile d u nd er C hi l ds

. This cann o t be c orrec t. M oreover, Em er s on’ s the or y woul d cr ea t e a pe rve rs e i nc en t i ve f or c ouns elno tt o o bj ec ts o thate i the r way hi s c l i en twoul d t ake ad v an tag e of a m or e lenie nt stan d ard o n ha b eas rev iew
. B eca u se we c onc l ude that the I l l i noi s Appel l at e Cour tdi d notunr ea s onabl y a ppl y St r i ck l a nd ’ s pr ejud ice p ro ng , w e ne ed n o t reac h th is i s s ue, b uts i m pl y no t e the an om al y thatEm er s on’ s s weepi ng prop osi ti on w ould creat e.

7- 30- 09 ser ved hi s Chil ds ar gum ent. 5 A FFI RMED .