FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 64 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 6- cv -0 00 48 -SPM -MD

JAVIER RAMOS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er - Ap pe ll an t, vers us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 28 , 20 11 )

Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ja vi er Ram os , a Flo rid a st at e p ris on er, ap pe al s, thr ou ghco un se l, the di st ric t

co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) as to th e fo ll owi ng fiv e cl ai m s: whet he r Ram os ’s cou ns el , Ric hm on d , was i ne ffec ti ve for 1 fai li ng to (1) ob

ject t o t he st at e m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y as s ci en ti fic al ly un rel iabl e, sp ecu la ti ve , andbe y on d t he m ed ia l ex am in er’s ex pe rti se ; (2 ) ob ject t o th e u se of t he st at e’s co m pu te r-g en erat edan im at io n o n t he ba si s t ha t the st at e d id no t l ay a pr op er fo un da ti on as r equi redby Pier ce v. Sta te , 71 8 S o. 2 d 8 06 , 80 9 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 97 ); ( 3) hi re a fo ren si c ex pe rt t o re bu t the m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y ; (4 ) fi le a m ot io n t o s up pr es s R am os ’s po st -arr es t s ta te m en t whe re co un se l t es ti fie d t ha t h e st rat eg ic al ly deci de d n otto fil e su cha m ot io n; an d (5 ) ob ject t o t he st at e’s cl os in g a rg um en t as be in g i nf la m m at ory an d e xp res si ng an op in io n a s t o R am os ’s gu il t. We exp an de d t he COA to co ns id er wh ethe r th e di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y fou ndth atRam os ha d n otex haus te d h is cla im s t ha t the tri al co urt v io la te d h is rig htto du e p ro ces s wh enit : (1 ) adm it te d t he m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y , (2) admit te d t he st at e’s co m pu te r-g en erat edan im at io n, (3 )

Ramos had two trial attorne y s, Harold a nd J im Ri chmond. For

ease of discussion, we 1 ref er to trial c ounsel simply

as “Richmond.” 2de ni edhi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , and(4) de ni edhi s re qu es t fo r an

“ in de pe nd en t ac ts ” jury ins tru ct io n. BACKGRO UND Ja vi er Ram os an d J oe Cla rksh aredanap art m en t i n P an am a Ci ty, Fl or id a in la te su m m er o f 19 94 . Ram os th enm ov edto Mi am i b utreturne d t o P an am a Ci ty on Octo be r 2, 1 99 4. Be fo re h e le ft M ia m i, h e to lda da nc er atth e ex ot ic da nc e cl ub he m an ag edth athe ha d t o t ak e car e o f pe op le inPan am a Ci ty. Whe n s he as ke d h im

if h e p lann edto m

ur de r an y on e, he sai d h e wou ldif h e h adto . Whi le inPan am a Ci ty, Ram os ga ve Cla rka .22 cal ib er p is to l. Ramos own eda .38 Bere tt a. They ent ereda ni gh tc lub c al le d t he Sh ow- N-Tail to sp eak with C hr is McC on ne ll , th e m an ag er. Itis un cl ear wh athapp en edaft er the y en te redth e cl ub —b utfou r m enwere d eadwhenth e sh oo ti ng en de d i nc lu di ng Ton y Land s, a m ai nt en an ce m anwho was i n t he club t o c ol le cthi s p ay ch eck . The re were si xt een gu ns ho t wo un ds am on g t he fou r m en , andeach ha d b een sh ot twi ce i n t he he ad . Ram os dro ve Cla rkto th ei r ol d apa rtment a ndth enco nt in ue d on to Mi am i. Ramos was arre st edsh ortl y aft er h e arr iv edinMi am i. Ram os ask edfora la wy er i n M iami an d was no t que st io ne d. He was tra ns po rte d t o P an am a Ci ty in a s m al l p la ne with p ol ic e o ffi cers fro m Pan am a Ci ty. Duri ng th e ri de he was t ol d t ha t Cl arkco op erat edwith t he po li ce. At 3Pan am a Ci ty head qu art ers , he a ga in ask edfor a la wy er b utwas a dv is editwou ld ta ke so m e ti m e fo r on e to be ap po in te d, s o h e g av e a s ta te m en t. His st at em en t in di cat edth atCla rksh ottwo of t he m ensu dd en ly andwitho utwarn in g. He s ai d th atCla rkth enun ex pe ct ed ly sho t M cCo nn el l. Ramos al so st at edhe sh otLand s i n se lf- de fen se be cau se Land s ap pe aredsu dd en ly, an d h e sa w Land s m ov e h is ha nd s as if h e were r each in g fo r a g un (whi chRam os kn ew Lan ds carr ie d) . Clark a nd Ram os were ch arg edwith fo ur co un ts of f

irs t d eg ree m

ur de r. In ajoi nttri al with two sep arat e juri es , Cla rkwas a cqui tt edon all co un ts an d R am os was c on vi ct edof fir stde gr ee m

ur de r of Land s, s eco ndde gr ee m

ur de r of McC on ne ll , and m an sl au gh te r of

th e o th er two m en . Ram os was s en te nc edto li fe i m pr is on m en t fo r Lan ds ’s m

ur de r an d l en gt hy con cu rren t s en te nc es forth e o th er h om ic id es . Ram os ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc es were af firm edwitho utop in io n o n d ire ctap pe al . Ram os ’s m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti onrel ie f was de ni ed , andth e d en ia l was affi rm ed on ap pe al witho utop in io n. Ramo s v. Sta te , No. 0 4- 06 72 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . Sep t. 27 , 20 05 ). Ram os fil edth is ti m el y pe ti ti onfora writof h ab eas co rp us whi chth e di st ric t co urt d en ie d. Th is ap pe al fol lo wed . DISCUSS IO N W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on de no vo an d factua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. McNa ir v. Ca mpb el l , 41 6 F .3d12 91 , 12 97 (11 th 4Ci r. 20 05 ). Mi xe d que st io ns of l aw an d fa ct , li ke anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f

co un se l cl ai m , are re vi ewed de no vo . Id . Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ): An ap pl ic at io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us onbe ha lf o f a p ers on in cu st ody pu rs ua ntto th e jud gm en t o f a St at e co urt s ha ll no t b e g ran te d with re sp ectto an y

cla im th atwas a dju di cat edon th e m eri ts inSta te co urt p ro ceed in gs un le ss th e ad jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m

– (1 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas c on tra ry to , or i nv ol ve d a n un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or, (2 ) res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edonanun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts inli gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he St at e co urt p ro ceed in g. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . “ [C]lea rly est ab li sh edFed eral law” refe rs to th e “ go ve rn in g le ga l p rin ci pl e o r pr in ci pl es setforth by the Supr em e Co urt atth e ti m e th e st at e co urt re nd ers it s d eci si on .” Lo ckye r v. An dr ade , 53 8 U.S. 6 3, 7 1– 72 , 12 3 S . Ct. 11 66 , 11 72 (20 03 ) ci ti ng

W il li ams v. Ta

ylor , 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 41 2 (2 00 0) . W e rev ie w a pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m de no vo wher e th e st at e co urt “ m ad e anun reas on ab le factua l d et erm in at io n.” Jo nes v. Wal ker , 54 0 F .3d12 77 , 12 88 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (en ba nc ). I. I NEFFECTI VE ASSI STANCE OF COUNSE L Inhabe as pe ti ti on s, s ta te co urt an d d is tri ctco urt fi nd in gs of h is to ric al fact are s ub ject t o t he pre su m

pt io n o f co rrec tn es s unl es s cl earl y erro ne ou s. Co ll ie r v.

5Tu rp in 17 7 F .3d11 84 , 11 98 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Ine ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i s

a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct , so we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io ns de no vo . McNa ir , 41 6 F .3dat 1 29 7. To pre va il on a cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f co un se l, a h ab eas pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , fal li ng be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss ; an d (2 ) “ th e d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce p reju di cedth e d efen se .” Stri cklan d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7–88 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4 (1 98 4) . Inch al le ng in g t he su ffi ci en cy of c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce, h ab eas pe ti ti on ers m us t o ve rco m e a s tro ng pre su m pt io n tha t co un se l was ad equa te an d e xe rci se d reas on ab le pro fes si on al jud gm en t wh enm ak in g s ig ni fic an t d eci si on s. Id. at 6 90 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 66 ; Ch an dl er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Cou ns el wil l n otbe fou ndin effe ct iv e if th e ap pr oa chtak enco ul d b e co ns id eredso un d t ria l s tra te gy. Stri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at 13 14 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 . Cou rts m us t ap pr oa chco un se l’s ch al le ng edco nduc t fro m th e co un se l’s p ers pe ct iv e atth e ti m e. Id. at 6 89 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 65 . The pre jud ic e p ro ng requi res a sh owi ng of r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the ou tc om e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t b utforco un se l’s erro rs . Id. at 6 94 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 68 . For g ui ltph as e cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce, i t i s n oten ou ghto sh ow th atth e err or

ha d a“ co nc ei vabl e eff

ecton th e o ut co m e”; th e err orm us t u nd erm in e 6co nf

id en ce i n the ou tc om e an d c reat e a rea so nabl e d oubtas t o wh ethe r, witho ut th e ch al le ng ederro r, th e fac t fi nd er wo ul d h av e fo un d re as on ab le do ub t. Id. at 69 5, 1 04 S. Ct. at20 67 -6 8. To m ak e th is de te rm in at io n, we re vi ew “ th e to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce b efo re the jud ge or ju ry .” Id. at 6 93 , 10 4 S . Ct. at20 69 . To s uc ceedon anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m , th e d efen da nt m us t p ro ve bo thpro ng s o f th e te st ; a r ev ie win g c ou rt n eedno t ad dr es s t he pe rfo rm an ce p ro ng of t he tes t i f th e p et it io ne r can no t m eetth e p reju di ce p ro ng an d vi ce ve rs a . Hol la da

y v. Hal ey , 20 9 F .3d12 43 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ).

A. Ram os fir stcla im s t ha t Ri ch m on d’s re pr es en ta ti on was i ne ffec ti ve du e to hi s fa il ur e to ob

ject t o t he m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y as s ci en ti fic al ly un rel iabl e, sp ecu la ti ve , andbe y on d t he m ed ia l ex am in er’s ex pe rti se . The m ed ic al ex am in er t es ti fie d a s t o t he po si ti on of t he vi ct im s’ bo di es when th ey were s ho t. The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t the st at e co urt’s ru li ng on th is cla im was un reas on ab le , so we rev ie w it de no vo . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) ; Jo nes v. Wal ker , 54 0 F.3 d a t 1 28 8 n .5. We beg in ou r an al y si s wi th th e p reju di ce p ro ng of the Stri ckl an d te st . Ram os canon ly prev ai l i f he canpro ve th atRic hm on d’s p ro pe r ob jecti on co ul d h av e rea so nabl y

ledto th e cre at io n o f rea so nabl e d oubtinth e m in d o f th e factfin de r. 7The de ci si on to admitex pe rt t es ti m on y inFlo rid a is lef

t t o t he tri al co urt’s di sc ret io n a ndrev ers edon ly on afin di ng of c le ar erro r. Terryv. St at e , 66 8 S o. 2 d 95 4, 9 60 (Fl a. 19 96 ). The co urt m us t m ak e two factua l d et erm in at io ns pri orto cert ifi cat io n o f anex pe rt. Th e co urt m us t d eci de fir stwhet he r th e subjec t m at te r is pr op er fo r ex pe rt t es ti m on y an d, s eco nd , whet he r th e wit ne ss is ad equa te ly qu al ifi edto ex pr es s an op in io n i n t he m at te r. Id. (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Exp ert s m ay ex pr es s o pi ni on s o n m at te rs inwhi chth ey ha ve ex pe rti se when itis inres po ns e to fact s d is cl os edat o r be fo re tria l. Id. Ram os arg ue s t ha t the m ed ic al ex am in er’s u se of c on di ti on al lan gu ag e in ex pl ai ni ng he r th eo ry

(“ ei th er...o r,” “ m ay

ha ve ,” “ co ul d h av e”) r en de redhe r te st im on y un he lp fu l t o t he jury. Thi s l an gu ag e p res en ts m ul ti pl e p os si bi li ti es for bo dy loc at io n t o t he jury, whi chth e jury was free to weig h. J ur ie s m ay weig h t he ev id en ce p res en te d b y

witne ss es , in cl ud in g e xp ertwitne ss es , bas edoncred ib il it y . Thi s l an gu ag e d oe s n otren de r th e st at e co urt’s fi nd in g o f he lp fu ln es s cl earl y erro ne ou s. Ram os ne xtarg ue s t ha t the m ed ic al ex am in er d idno t h av e th e requi si te ex pe rti se to tes ti fy

as s he di d. Here , th e tr ia l co urt re vi ewedth e m ed ic al ex am in er’s rec or d a ndm ad e a d et erm in at io n tha t h er educ at io n, kno wled ge , sk il l, ex pe rie nc e, an d trai ni ng qu al ifi edhe r as a fo ren si c p atho lo gi stcap ab le of 8ex pr es si ng op in io ns onth e p os it io n o f th e b od ie s. Th is de te rm in at io n i s n ot

cl earl y erro ne ou s. Se e Ter ry , 66 8 S o. 2 d a t 9 60 –6 1 (s ta ti ng th atwhi le th ere m ay be a di sp ut e o ve r th e wei gh t t o b e g iv ento a m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y reg ard in g avi ct im ’s bo dy po si ti on be fo re d eat h, ad m is si bi li ty of su chanex pe rt t o te st ify is wi th in th e tr ia l co urt’s d is cret io n a nddo es no t re pr es en t a c le ar s ho win g of erro r.). As a re su lt , Ram os is un ab le to co nv in ce u s t ha t, h adtri al co un se l o bjec te d to th e m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y or e xp ert is e, th e te st im on y wou ldha ve be en di sa ll owe d. Ab se ntth is sh owi ng , he d oe s n otm eetth e p reju di ce p ro ng of t he Stri ckl an d

tes t an d i s t he refo re n oten ti tl edto rel ie f on th is gro un d. Add it io na ll y , whi le th e m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y da m ag edRam os ’s se lf- de fen se th eo ry , eve n wi th ou t the tes ti m on y of the m ed ic al ex am in er the re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f Ram os ’s gu il t o n wh ic h areas on ab le jury co ul d b as e a gu il ty con vi ct io n. Pri orto lea vi ng Mi am i, Ra m os ha d aco nv ers at io n wi th a da nc er athi s n ig ht cl ub who tes ti fie d t ha t h e to ldhe r he ha d t o t ak e car e o f pe op le in Pan am a Ci ty andwou ldki ll if n eces sa ry . Ram os tes ti fie d a t tria l tha t h e sh ot Ton y Land s fi rs t i n t he ch es t, an d t he n a ga in aft er Lan ds ’s leg s b uc kl edinsel fde fen se . Sin ce Ra m os tes ti fie d, the jury was free to di sb el ie ve hi s s el f-d efen se arg um en t an d t o u se hi s t es ti m on y as s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce tha t h e sh otLand s wi th 9pr em ed it at io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia mso n , 33 9 F .3d12 95 , 13 01 n.1 4 (1 1t h C ir.

20 03 ) (“ [The de fen da nt ] te st ifi edinhe r own de fen se . . . [s o] th e jury was free to di sb el ie ve he r an d u se he r te st im on y as s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce p ro vi ng he r gu il t.”) . Bas edon th is ev id en ce, the re i s n o re as on ab le pro babi li ty tha t the jury wou ldha ve fo un d tha t Ra m os di d n otsh oo t Lan ds with p rem ed it at io n abs en t the m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y . Accor di ng ly, Ram os is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f on th is gro un d. B. Ram os ne xtco nt en ds th atRic hm on d was in effe ct iv e b ecau se he fai le d t o ob ject t o t he co m

pu te r-g en erat edan im at io n s ho win g t he po si ti on of Lan ds ’s bo dy whe n h e was sh otforfai lu re t o l ay a pr op er fo un da ti on , as re qu ire d b y Pier ce v. St at e , 71 8 S o. 2 d 8 06 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 97 ). Thi s an im at io n was pre pa red 2 us in g t he m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the st at e co urt d idno t p ro pe rly addres s t he is su e rai se d, s o we r ev ie w th e Stri ckl an d cla im de no vo .

Piercestated that for

a cour t to admit a computer a

nimation, the proponent must 2 establish that “(1) the opinion evidence [i s] helpful to the trier of fa ct; (2) the w itness [ is] qualified a s an expert; (3) the opinion evide nce [is] applied to evidenc e off ere d at trial; and (4) ... the evidenc e, although technica lly rele vant, [does] not present a substantial dang er of

unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value.” 718 So. 2d at 809 (citation omitted). The proponent must also “e stablish that the fac ts or data on whic h the expert relied in f ormingthe opinion ex presse d by

the computer

animation are of a ty

pe re asonably

relied upon by

experts in the subject a

rea ”, and that “the computer animation [i s] a fair and a ccur ate depiction of that which it purports to be.” Id. 10Pier ceis no t i ns tru ct iv e h ere. Itwas d eci de d t wo years a fte r Ram os ’s tri al ,

an d t he de ci di ng co urt re co gn iz edth atth e is su e was ad dr es se d b y “ no ap pe ll at e co urt i n F lo rid a an d b y

few in ot he r juri sd ic ti on s.” Pier ce , 71 8 S o. 2 d a t 8 07 . Att orne y s ar e n otrequi redto m ak e arg um en ts ba se d o n p red ic ti on s o f ho w law wil l d ev el op . Sp az ia no v. Si ng le ta ry36 F.3d10 28 , 10 39 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Giv enth is ba ck gr ou nd , Ram os ha s n ot pr ov enth atev enha d t he ob jecti on be enm ad e, th e tr ia l co urt wo ul d h av e ex cl ud ed th e an im at io n. Bec au se Ram os fai ls to pro ve th athi s ca se was p reju di cedby Rich m on d’s fai lu re t o o bjec t t o t he ev id en ce, Ra m os is no t en ti tl edto habe as rel ie f on th is gr ou nd . C. Ram os ne xtarg ue s t ha t Ri ch m on d was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to hi re a fo ren si c ex pe rt. Th e st at e co urt ap pl ie d Stri ckl an d to th is is su e an d fo un d t ha t n o gr an t o f ex trati m e o r hi rin g o f ot he r fo ren si c ex pe rts wou ldhave ch an ge d the ou tc om e o f th e cas e. It i s u nc on te st edth atth e st at e d is cl os edth e m ed ic al ex am in er wh o wo ul d b e cal le d t o t es ti fy

at t ria l as a po ss ib le witne ss les s t han o ne m on th be fo re tria l. Thro ug h n o faul t o f hi s o wn, Ri ch m on d was un ab le to de po se th is witne ss an d 11le arnth athe r op in io ns were co nt rary to t he ori gi na l m ed ic al ex am in er’s o pi ni on s

un ti l fo urda y s b efo re the tri al be ga n. Ri ch m on d m ov edforco nt in uanc es for au th or iz at io n t o re ta in anex pe rt a ndto pre pa re a co m pu te r an im at io n. Hi s m ot io ns an d c on ti nu an ces were d en ie d, an d i t d oe s n otap pe ar fro m th e rec or d be fo re u s t ha t h is m ot io n t o re ta in anex pe rt a ndto pre pa re a co m pu te r an im at io n was grant ed . Ri ch m on d’s p erfo rm an ce i s n otde fic ie ntm erel y be cau se itis no t p erfe ct . To p ro ve th e p erfo rm an ce p ro ng of Stri ckl an d , Ram os m us t p ro ve th atno ot he r co m pe te ntlawyer wou ldha ve fai le d t o a nt ic ip at e th e st at e’s ta rdy di sc lo su re an d th e co urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t a c on ti nu an ce. He h as no t d on e so . There fo re, the st at e co urt’s ru li ng was c on si st en t wi th cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law an d re as on ab ly de te rm in edth atRic hm on d’s fa il ur e to hi re a fo ren si c ex pe rt wa s d ic ta te d b y ti m e an d c os t re stric ti on s, n otby defi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. Ram os is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f on th is gro un d. D. Ram os arg ue s t ha t Ri ch m on d’s d eci si on no t t o fi le a m ot io n t o s up pr es s h is co nf es si on co ns ti tu te d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. The st at e co urt ap pl ie d Stri ckl an d

an d d et erm in edth atRic hm on d’s d eci si on no t t o fi le a m ot io n t o supp res s t o a vo idtes ti m on y by the co de fen dantan d t o p ur su e a s el f-d efen se cla im

12was a reas on ab le st rat eg ic ch oi ce an d d idno t co ns ti tu te in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f

co un se l. Whethe r a ch oi ce i s a t act ic al on e is a qu es ti on of f act , ent it le d t o a pr es um pt io n o f co rrec tn es s. Pro ven za no v. Si ng le ta ry , 14 8 F .3d13 27 , 13 30 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 ). The re as on ab le ne ss of s uc h ach oi ce i s a que st io n o f la w andsubjec t to de no vo rev ie w. Hardw ic k v. Cr os by , 32 0 F .3d11 27 , 11 63 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). And , as we h av e st at ed , hab eas rel ie f is on ly gran te d wh enth e tr ia l co urt’s de ci si on is co nt rary to o r anob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y es tabl is he d fe de ral law. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). The st at e co urt fo un d t ha t Ri ch m on d’s d eci si on no t t o fi le th e m ot io n was ta ct ic al . Whe n R ic hm on d m ad e th is de ci si on , he h adat l eas t two o f Ram os ’s co de fen dant ’s st at em en ts , he h adde po se d t he fir earm s ex pe rt, h e h adsp en t twelv e ho ur s re se arch in g t he is su e an d re vi ewin g R am os ’s st at em en t, an d h e h ad de te rm in edth atRam os ’s po si ti on as t o wh o c omm it te d the m ur de rs was c on tra ry to hi s co de fen da nt ’s po si ti on on th e m at te r. W it h thi s i nf orm at io n, Ri ch m on d m ad e th e d eci si on no t t o fi le a m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Up on rev ie w of t he reco rd , we can no t s ay

th atth e st at e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f Stri ckl an d was u nr eas on ab le in co nc lu di ng th atRic hm on d m ad e a rea so nabl e ta ct ic al de ci si onno t t o fi le th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Th eref or e, Ram os is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f on th is gro un d.

E. 13Ram os ’s fin al Stri ckl an d cla im is ba se d o n R ic hm on d’s fa il ur e to ob ject t o th e p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g arg um en ts . The s ta te co urt h el d t ha t the pro se cu to r’s st at em en ts were n otim

pr op er. As s ta te d abo ve , hab eas rel ie f is on ly gran te d wh en th e tr ia l co urt’s d eci si on is co nt rary to o r anob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). Inev al ua ti ng pro se cu to ria l i nd is cret io n, the rel ev an t que st io n i s “ whe th er th e co m m en ts so in fect edth e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a de ni al of due pro ces s.” Darde n v . W ai nw ri gh t , 47 7 U.S. 1 68 , 18 1, 10 6 S . Ct. 2 46 4, 2 47 1 (1 98 6) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . A lawy er m ay no t m ak e “ [i]m

pr op er s ug ge st io ns , in si nu at io ns , [or ] as se rti on s ca lc ul at edto m is le ador i nf

la m e th e jury’ s p as si on s” inhi s cl os in g arg um en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z , 59 0 F .3d12 38 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 4 13 (20 10 ). Howev er, i m

pr op er re m ark s ar e h arm le ss erro r if th ere i s “ su ffi ci en t i nd ep en de nt ev id en ce o f gu il t” inth e rec or d. Lo pe z , 59 0 F .3dat 1 25 6 . (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . At v ari ou s t im es du rin g the clo si ng arg um en t, the pro se cu to r st at edth at Ram os “ sh ad edhi s t es ti m on y ” an d “ jus t wan ts to co n you .” He als o d es cri be d t he de fen se ’s cas e st rat eg y

as l ik e a “

jig sa w pu zzl e” wh ere youhave to tak e th e p ie ces

14an d “ fitth em inba ckward s an d ups id e d own an d c orne r wis e, et c.” Fi na ll y , th e pr os ecu to r st at edth atRam os was “ gu il ty, gu il ty, gu il ty.” W e can no t s ay

th atth es e st at em en ts “ in fect edth e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s.” Darde n , 47 7 U.S. at18 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at24 71 . Becau se Ram os tes ti fie d, the pr os ecu to r co ul d c omm en t o n h is tes ti m on y . Evenwitho utth es e st at em en ts , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o uph ol d t he gu il ty verd ic t. Thu s, the st at e co urt’s 3 ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral law was ne it he r co nt rary to cl earl y st at edfed eral law n or un reas on ab le , so Ram os is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f onth is cla im . II . EXHAUSTI ON Fi nd in gs of e xh au st io n b y th e d is tri ctco urt i n § 22 54 cas es are m ix ed qu es ti on s o f la w andfact , andwe rev ie w th em de no vo . Mau k v. La ni er , 48 4 F .3d 13 52 , 13 57 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Fo r a fed eral co urt t o h ear ahabe as cla im res ul ti ng fro m

a st at e co nv ic ti on , th e p et it io ne r m

us t fi rs t ex haus t the rem ed ie s av ai labl e in hi s s ta te ’s cou rts . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( b) (1 )(A). Thi s re qu ire m en t i s n otsat is fie d i f th e p ris on er fa il s t o rai se a fed eral cla im

inth e st at e co urt, se e, e.g . , Bai le y v. Na gl e , 17 2 F .3d12 99 , At the time of closingarg ument, there was (1) testimony that Ramos told an employee he 3 was g oing to Pana

ma City to deal with some people , killing them if nec essar y , (2) Ramos’s testimony on the stand that he supplied his code fenda nt with a wea

pon used in the shooting a nd that he shot one of the victims in self-defe nse, (3) evidenc e of Ramos’s ownership of one of the two guns rec overe d by

the police, a

nd (4) identific ation evidenc e of Ramos at the scene of the crime immediate ly

afte r the murde rs occ urre d. 1513 03 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m), orfai ls to rai se a cl ai m interm s o f fed eral law, se e, e.g . , Gra

y v. Nethe rl an d , 51 8 U.S. 1 52 , 16 2– 63 , 11 6 S . Ct. 2 07 4, 2 08 1 (1 99 6) (“ [F]or p ur

po se s o f ex haus ti ng st at e rem ed ie s, a c la im for rel ie f in habe as co rp us m us t i nc lu de refe ren ce t o asp eci fic fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te e, as well as a st at em en t o f th e fac ts th aten ti tl e th e p et it io ne r to rel ie f.”). A cl ai m is on ly ex haus te d i f itis fai rly pres en te d t o t he st at e co urts , m ean in g t ha t the same clai m m us t b e b ro ug htbe fo re b ot h t he st at e an d fe de ral co urts an d p res en te d i n s uc h a way “ th ata reas on ab le read er wo ul d u nd ers ta nd[th e] clai m ’s parti cu lar le ga l b as is an d s pe ci fic factua l fo un da ti on .” McNa ir v. Ca mpb el l , 41 6 F .3d12 91 , 13 02 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . In Baldw in v. Rees e , th e Supr em e Co urt s ta te d t ha t ci ti ng th e fed eral so ur ce of law i n c on

jun ct io n wi th th e st at e law cla im , or c it in g acas e d eci di ng su cha cl ai m on fed eral gro un ds , or s im pl y lab el in g t he cla im

fed eral is su ffi ci en t t o fa irl y pr es en t a c la im . 54 1 U.S. 2 7, 3 2, 1 24 S. Ct. 1 34 7, 1 35 1 (2 00 4) . In McNa ir , we ap pl ie d t hi s s ta nd ardby loo ki ng at t he un de rlyin g p ur po se of e xh au st io n—to

“ affo rdth e st at e co urts a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty to co ns id er al le ga ti on s o f le ga l erro r witho utin te rfer en ce fr om th e fed eral jud ic ia ry .” McNa ir , 41 6 F .3dat 1 30 2 (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Giv enth is pu rp os e, we he ldth atth e Baldw in lan gu ag e d is cu ss in g a de qu at e m ean s t o i de nt ify fede ral is su es to th e 16lo wer s ta te co urts was d ic taan d t ha t a f ed eral is su e requi res m or e th ana sp rin kl in g o f fed eral cit at io ns , andm or e th an“ so m e m ak es hi ft n eed le s i n t he ha y st ackof t he st at e co urt re co rd .” McNa ir , 41 6 F .3dat 1 30 3. Ram os cla im s t ha t h is fed eral du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d wh enth e co urt (1 ) adm it te d t he m ed ic al ex am in er’s t es ti m on y , (2) adm it te d t he st at e’s co m pu te r ge ne rat edan im at io n, (3 ) de ni edhi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , an d (4 ) de ni edhi s re qu es t fo r an“ in de pe nd en t ac ts ” jury ins tru ct io n. Fi rs t, Ra m os cla im s d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s i n t he adm is si on of t he tes ti m on y of th e m ed ic al ex am in er i nt o e vi de nc e. Inhi s b rie f to th e Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal of Flo rid a, Ram os m ad e o ne pa ss in g re fere nc e to fed eral law. He s ta te d t ha t “ th is ev id en ce was so de va st at in gl y pre jud ic ia l tha t i ts in tro du ct io n v io la te d h is Flo rid a an d fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s t o due pro ces s an d afai r tr ia l an d t he erro r was fu nd am en ta l an d, thu s, m us t b e co ns id eredby thi s co urt ev enab se ntob jecti on .” Nowh ere i n h is arg um en t d oe s h e arg ue fed eral st an da rd s, n ordo es he in cl ud e refe ren ces to fed eral cas e la w. Whi le ot he r Ci rcu it s h av e in te rp ret ed Baldw in di ffer en tl y , as R am os di sc us se s i n h is bri ef, we h av e requi redm or e th an“ne ed le s in th e h ay st ack .” McNa ir , 41 6 F .3dat 1 30 3. But see Ja cks on v. Edwa rd

s , 40 4 F.3 d 6 12 , 61 8– 22 (2dCir . 20 05 ) (fo cu si ng on th e d eg ree o f si m il ari ty of th e st at e la w cla im s an d fe de ral law cl ai m s i n d eci di ng ex haus ti on forth e p ur po se of 17habe as ). In McNa ir , we fou ndth ata ci ta ti on to a si ng le fed eral cas e in a st rin g o f

cas es , anda pa ss in g re fere nc e inth e co nc lu si on of a n a rg um en t t o v ari ou s am en dm en ts of t he Co ns ti tu ti on di d n otfai rly pres en t the fed eral is su e to th e st at e co urt, b arri ng fed eral habe as rev ie w forlac k o f ex haus ti on inth e st at e co urts . 41 6 F.3 d a t 1 30 3- 04 . Si m il arl y , her e Ram os m en ti on s h is fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o nl y inan op en in g p arag rap h. Th is refe ren ce d idno t fa irl y pre se ntth e is su e to th e st at e co urt, an d s o i t h as no t b een ex haus te d. Ou r ho ld in g i n McNa ir do es no t d ep en d on whet he r th e st at e an d fe de ral st an da rd s fo r eac h i ss ue were i de nt ic al , bu t ra th er whe th er the st at e co urt was onno ti ce o f th e fed eral cla im . Id. at 1 30 4. Here , th e st at e co urt was no t o n n ot ic e o f th e due pro ces s cl ai m inhi s o bjec ti on to th e adm is si on of e vi de nc e, so th e is su e was no t p ro pe rly exh au st edinth e st at e co urt. Seco nd , Ram os arg ue s t ha t the adm is si onof t he co m pu te r-g en erat ed an im at io n v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts . In h is ap pe ll at e b rie f in th e st at e co urt, he m en ti on edth atth e ad m is si on of t he an im at io n v io la te d h is “ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to a fai r tr ia l” an d due pro ces s ri gh ts . Agai n, h is leg al arg um en t i s co nf in edto st at e la w andst at e st an da rd s. Ap pl y in g McNa ir , Ram os ’s bri ef d idno t p utth e st at e co urt o n n ot ic e o f th e fed eral is su e, an d s o h e d idno t ex haus t the fed eral qu es ti on inst at e co urt an d we the refo re ca nn otgra ntth e rel ie f he see ks . 18Nex t, Ra m os arg ue s t ha t the st at e d idno t s uf fic ie nt ly pro ve hi s g ui ltas t o th e p rem ed it at io n o f th e m ur de r of Land s, an d s o h is m ot io n fo r acqui tt al was im pr op erl y de ni ed . Ram os di d n otad dr es s an y fed eral law i n t hi s ar gu m en t, ex cep t fo r a p as si ng refe ren ce t o t he Co ns ti tu ti on . He st at es “ [t]he [ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce] rul e im

pl ic at es a de fen da nt ’s Flo rid a an d fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s t o du e p ro ces s.” Th es e p as si ng refe ren ces to th e Co ns ti tu ti onare ak in to th e

“ ne ed le s i n t he ha y st ack ” th atwe ex pl ic it ly sou gh t t o a vo idinou r in te rp ret at io n o f Baldw in . McNa ir , 41 6 F .3dat 1 30 3. Th is refe ren ce d idno t p ro pe rly pu t the st at e co urt o n n ot ic e o f th e fed eral is su e, an d s o we f in d tha t h is cla im

ha s n otbe en ex haus te d b y

th e st at e co urts . Fi na ll y , Ram os arg ue s t ha t the tri al co urt erredinde nyin g h is reque stforan

“ in de pe nd en t ac ts ” jury ins tru ct io n. As with t he ot he r th ree i ss ue s, Ra m os m ak es no refe ren ce t o fe de ral law o th er tha n i n t he co nc lu si on of h is law s ect io n, s ta ti ng th atth e fai lure t o i ss ue su chanin st ru ct io n d en ie s “ Fl or id a an d fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s t o due pro ces s an d afai r tr ia l.” Her e ag ai n, Ra m os fai le d t o pr op erl y ex haus t the fed eral is su e in th e st at e co urt, an d s o we c an no t g ran t re li ef.

CONCLUSI ON Ram os ’s cou ns el was n otco ns ti tu ti on al ly ine ffec ti ve , andRam os fai le d t o fu ll y ex haus t the fed eral is su es inth e st at e co urts . 19AFFIRMED.

20