FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 22, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11019 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 8 0 1 2 4 - CV- KLR K I M D U A Y N E C A I N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y , F L O R I D A D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 22, 2008) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

K im D u a y n e C a in , aF lo r id as ta te p r is o n e rp r o c e e d in g th r o u g h c o u n s e l, ap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f

h is f e d e r a l h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . W e grant ed a c ert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty on the i ss ue of “ [w ] hether the di stri ctcourt e rr e d i n de ny i ng [ C a i n’ s ] c l a i m tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f ora dvi s i ng [ C a i n] nott o t e s t i f

y on hi s ow n be ha l f

, i n pa r t , be c aus e [ C a i n] w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o m ake the i ni t i al and rebut t al ar gu m ent s a tcl osi ng ar gu m entun der F l ori da R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 3. 25 0 i f [ C ai n] t es t i fi ed. ” C ai n ass ert s he w as deni ed the ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l athi s m urder tr ia l b e c au s e h is a tto rn e y a d v is e d C a in a g a in s t te s tif y in g o n h is o w n b e h a lf

. C a in cont ends thi s a dv i ce w as defi ci ent , i n thati tw as base d o n the erroneou s l egal c onc l us i on tha tby C a i n nott e s t i f y i ng, c ouns e l w oul d ha ve the r i ghtt o pr e s e ntthe c onc l udi ng a r gum e ntt o the j ury . M or e ove r , C a i n a s s e r t s c ouns e l ’ s de f i c i e nt r e pr e s e nt a t i on pr e

j udi c e d the pr oc e e di ngs , a s C a i n’ s t e s t i m ony w oul d ha ve e x p la in e d th e S ta te ’s e v id e n c e lin k in g h im to th e m u r d e r . S p e c if ic a lly , C a in w o u ld ha ve t e s t i f

i e d he l e f thi s pa l m pr i nta tthe m ur de rs c e ne w he n he i ns pe c t e d the h o m e f o rte rm ite s s e v e r a l m o n th s b e f o r e th e k illin g , a n d th a t am a n n a m e d E r ic N e w to n b r o u g h t th e v ic tim ’s b r a c e le t to h im , w h ic h th e tw o m e n s u b s e q u e n tly pa w ne d.3

W e r e vi e w the gr a ntorde ni a l of a§ 2254 f

e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on de no vo . McN a irv . C a m

p b e ll , 416 F . 3d 1291, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . H ow e ve r , unde rthe A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f

f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996, P ub. L . N o. 104- 132, 110 S t at . 12 14 (199 6), habeas re l i ef fr om a s t at e c ou rtdeci si on m ayno tbe grant ed u n le s s th e s ta te ’s d e c is io n w a s “( 1 ) . . . c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p l i c a t i o n o f

, c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e d Fe d e r a l l a w , a s d e t e rmi n e d b y th e Su p r e me C our tof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; or( 2) . . . ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ng. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) . “ [ A ] f e de r a l habe a s c our tm a ki ng the ‘ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on’ i nq ui ryshou l d ask w hether the st at e c ou rt ’ s app l i ca t i on of cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw w as obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. ” W i l l i am s v . T

ay lor , 120 S . C t . 1495, 1521 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . Th e Su p r e me Co u r th a s e s t ab l i s h e datw o - p a r ti n q u i ry f o rr e v i e w i n g c l a i ms o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 104 S . C t . 2052, 20 64 (198 4). “ F i rs t , the defendantm ustshow thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent . ” I

d. “T h e p r o p e rm e a s u r e o f a tto rn e y p e r f

o rm a n c e r e m a in s . . . r e a s onabl e ne s s unde rpr e va i l i ng pr of e s s i ona l norm s , ” a l though r e vi e w “ of c o u n s e l’s p e r f

o rm a n c e m u s t b e h ig h ly d e f e r e n tia l,” a n d “th e c o u r t s h o u ld re cogn i ze thatcoun se l i s s trong l y pre sum ed t o h ave r endered adequat e a ss i st ance4

and m ade a l l si gn i fi cantdeci si on s i n the exerc i se of re as on abl e profes si on al j ud gm ent . ” I

d. a t2065- 66. “ S e c ond, the de f e nda ntm us ts how tha tthe de f i c i e nt perf orm ance prej ud i ce d the defense . ” I d. a t2064. T o e s t abl i s h pr e j udi c e , “ [ t ] he d ef en d an t m u st sh o w th at th er e is a re as o n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at, b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s u n p r o f e s s io n a l e rr o r s , th e r e s u lt o f th e p r o c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. A r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty i s apr obabi l i ty s uf f i c i e ntt o unde rm i ne c onf i de nc e i n the ou t com e. ” I

d. a t2068.

“ [A ] cr i m i nal defe nd anthas a f undam e ntal

c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to te s tif y in hi s orhe row n be ha l f

a ttr i a l . T hi s r i ghti s pe r s ona l t o the de f e nda nta nd c a nnotbe w ai ved ei ther by the tri al courtor by defe nse c ou nsel . ” U ni te d State s v . T

e ague , 95 3 F . 2d 15 25 , 15 32 (11th C i r. 19 92 ) ( en banc) (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). T o p rot ec t thi s r i gh tt o t es t i fy , coun se l m usti nform the defendantthathe has ari gh tt o t es t i fy ornott o t e s t i f

y , “ the s tr a t e gi c i m pl i c a t i ons of e a c h c hoi c e , ” a nd tha tthe de f e nda nt m u s t u ltim a te ly d e c id e h im s e lf w h e th e rto te s tif

y . N i chol s v . B ut ler , 953 F . 2d 1550, 1553 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( e n ba nc ) . I n N ic h o ls , w e h e ld ad e f

e n d a n t’s f

a ilu r e to t e s t i f y , ba s e d on c ouns e l ’ s i m pr ope rthr e a tt o w i thdr a w i f the de f e nda ntt e s t i f

i e d, caused suff

i ci entprej ud i ce un der Str i c kland in a“v e ry c lo s e c a s e ” w h e r e th e o n ly e vi de nc e the de f

e nda ntc om m i tt e d the c r i m e w a s the i de nt i f i c a t i on of

the de f e nda nt by one e y e w i tne s s , a nd w he r e the de f e nda ntw oul d ha ve of

f e r e d hi s ow n ve r s i on of5

th e e v e n ts f

o rth e ju ry to w e ig h a g a in s t th e e y e w itn e s s ’s a c c o u n t. I d. a t 1 5 5 3 - 5 4 . T o th a t e n d , w e n o te d “[ t]h e te s tim o n y o f ac r im in a l d e f

e n d a n t a t h is o w n tr ia l is un i qu e and i nh er ent l y s i gn i fi cant , ” e spec i al l y “ w here the qu es t i on w as no tw hether a c ri m e w as com m i tt ed, bu tw hether th e de fe n da n t w as the pers on w ho com m i tt ed the cr i m e. ” I

d. (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). Str i c kland

prov i des the appl i cabl e and cl earl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rt p r e c e d e n t c o n c e rn in g C a in ’s c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. A s C a in c h a lle n g e s o n ly th e s ta te c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f th e tw o - p a r t Str i c kland te s t in its r e s ol ut i on of

hi s m ot i on f

orpos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f , w e m us tde t e rm i ne w he the rthe st at e c ou rt ’ s app l i ca t i on of Str i c kland w a s o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le . See Wi l l i a ms , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 1 5 2 1 ( in te rp r e tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e m u s t f ir s t a d d r e s s w h e th e rit w a s o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le fo r th e st at e co u rtt o co n cl u d e th atd efen se co u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce w as n o tso de f i c i e nttha ti t“ f

e l l be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s onabl e ne s s ” c ons i de r i ng a ll o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Str i c kland , 1 0 4 S . C t. at 2 0 6 4 . O n th e o n e h an d , C ain ’s tr i a l c ouns e l e rr one ous l y t ol d hi m tha tby notpr e s e nt i ng ade f e ns e , i nc l udi ng C a i n’ s t e s t i m ony , the y w oul d r e s e rve the r i ghtt o pr e s e ntf i r s ta nd r e butt a l c l os i ng a r g u m e n ts . A s ar e s u lt, w h e n C a in s ta te d a t tr ia l th a t h e w a s v e ry s a tis f ie d w ith coun se l ’ s per form ance and thathe agree d w i th the deci si on no tt o t es t i fy , thi s w as6

b a s e d o n c o u n s e l’s m is ta k e n le g a l a d v ic e . H o w e v e r , b y C a in ’s o w n a c c o u n t, h is de c i s i on nott o t e s t i f

y w a s pa r tof

c ouns e l ’ s ove r a r c hi ng a dvi c e a ga i ns tpr e s e nt i ng a def ense ca se i n g ener al , w hi ch w as al so base d o n cou nsel ’ s bel i ef the S t at e had n o t m e t its b u r d e n o f

p r o o f a n d th e f

a c t th a t C a in w o u ld r e m a in in c u s to d y w h ile th e d efen se p resen t ed i t s case. G i v en th e ci rcu m st an t i al n atu re o f th e case ag ai n st C ai n, and i n l i gh tof the hi gh l evel of defe re nce a ff orded t o the deci si on s of tri al co u n sel w h en rev i ew ed i n h i n d si g h t , co u n sel ’ s ad v i ce ag ai n stp resen t i n g a d efen se c a s e c oul d be c ons i de r e d ar e a s onabl e s tr a t e gy . T he r e f or e , the s t a t e c our t ’ s f

i ndi ng tha tde f e ns e c ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e di d notf

a l l be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of re as on abl enes s w as obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. H o w e v e r , e v e n if

C a in ’s d e c is io n n o t to te s tif y r e s u lte d f

r o m p r o f e s s io n a lly u n re as o n ab le ad v ice f

ro m co u n se l, C ain h as n o t sh o w n th at th e s tate co u rt’s appl i ca t i on of Str i c kland ’ s p r e j u d i c e p r o n g wa s o b

j e c t i v e l y u n r e a s o n ab l e . To e s tab lis h p r e

ju d ic e , C a in h a d to d e m o n s tr a te “th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility th a t, butf orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve been di ff er ent . ” Str i c kland , 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . C ai n w ou l d h ave t es t i fi ed he l ef t hi s pa l m pr i nta tthe m ur de rs c e ne w he n he i ns pe c t e d f ort e rm i t e s s e ve r a l m onths b ef o re th e m u rd er , an d th at a m an n am ed E ric N ew to n b ro u g h t th e v icti m ’s7

brac el ett o C ai n, w hi ch the tw o m en paw ned tw o d ay s a ft erthe m urder, and w hi ch th e S ta te u s e d to lin kC a in to th e m u r d e r . C ai n’ s theory he l ef

thi s pal m pri nton the vi ct i m ’ s s ho w er , w here she w as f ound m ur de r e d, w he n he i ns pe c t e d he rhom e f ort e rm i t e s w a s m a de know n t o the ju ry th r o u g h th e c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o f C a in ’s e m p lo y e r . F u r th e rm o r e , th e S ta te coul d h ave i m peac hed C ai n’ s t es t i m on y w i th h i s pri or st at em ent s t o the po l i ce that th e o n l y p l aces th ath i s p ri n t s w o u l d p o ssi b l y b e ath er h o m e w ere th e d o o rk n o b s, ca b in ets, an d p er h ap s a n atti c e n tran ce . A d d it io n ally, th e p o ten ti al ef fe ct o f C ain ’s purpor t e d t e s t i m ony m us tbe a s s e s s e d i n l i ghtof the S t a t e ’ s othe re vi de nc e . T he i nv es t i gat i ng offi ce rs di d n otfi nd C ai n’ s pri nt s anyw here el se i n the ho m e bes i des the show erl edge. T he w om an w ho cl eaned the vi ct i m ’ s hom e f or se vera l ye ar s t es t i fi ed she tho roug hl y c l eaned the vi ct i m ’ s s ho w erw i th C l orox every other w ee k i n the m on ths betw ee n C ai n’ s l as tkn ow n v i si tt o the ho m e t o i nspectfor t erm i t es and the w ee k l ea di ng up t o the m urder, i ncl ud i ng the ar eaw here offi ce rs di sc ov er ed C ai n’ s pal m pri nt . T w o o f the S t at e’ s f i ng erpri ntexam i ners agre ed that any f i ng erpri nt s on the show erw ou l d h ave been re m ov ed du ri ng the abov ere fe re nced cl eani ng s. A s are sul t , the st at e c ou rtre as on abl y c on cl ud ed there w as no ta r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe tri al ou t com e w ou l d h ave been di ff er enthad h e te s tif ie d ab o u t th e p a lm p r in t.8

C a i n ’ s c l a i m th a tNe wt o n b r o u g h tth e b r a c e l e tt o h i m wa s a l s o m a d e k n o wn to th e ju ry d u rin g th e c ro ss -e x am in atio n o f N ew to n . F u rth er , w h er ea s C ain ’s p erso n al p resen t at i o n o f th i s st o ry t o th e j u ry, as o p p o sed t o d efen se co u n sel ’ s, w ou l d h ave been “ un i qu e and i nh er ent l y s i gn i fi cant , ” i tw ou l d al so have op ened th e d o o rf

o rth e im p e a c h m e n t w ith in c o n s is te n t p r e - tr ia l s ta te m e n ts . N ic h o ls , 953 F . 2d at15 53 . F or exam pl e, C ai n t ol d i nv es t i gat ors he had “ never s ee n thatbrac el et b e f o r e ,” th o u g h h e a ls o s ta te d h e in f a c t p a w n e d as e p a r a te b r a c e le t, b u t “G o d o n ly k n o w s” w h o g av e i tt o h i m , an d h e “ m i g h th av e h ad i tfo r tw o o r th ree m o n th s” be f or e pa w ni ng i t . M or e ove r , the pot e nt i a l e f f e c tof C a i n’ s purpor t e d t e s t i m ony s houl d a ga i n be e va l ua t e d i n l i ghtof the S t a t e ’ s othe re vi de nc e . F ori ns t a nc e , the brac el etC ai n and N ew t on paw ned w as i dent i fi ed as the vi ct i m ’ s, and she w as se en w e a r in g it th e d a y b e f

o r e h e rm u r d e r . I n an y e v e n t, h a d C a in te s tif ie d it w o u ld h a v e b e e n u p to th e ju ry to w e ig h N e w to n ’s v e r s io n o f th e s to ry a g a in s t C a in ’s . B a s e d on the f

or e goi ng, a nd the f

a c ttha tN e w t on w a s ne ve rl i nke d t o the vi c t i m or her hom e, w here as C ai n’ s pal m pri ntw as foun d o n the l edge of the show er w here i n the vi ct i m w as foun d m urdered, the st at e c ou rtre as on abl y c on cl ud ed there w a s notar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha tthe ve r di c tw oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e ntha d he t e s t i f i e d th a tN e w t o n g a v e th e b r a c e l e tt o h i m.9

A s ar e s ul t , the s t a t e c our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha tC a i n w a s notde ni e d e f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l w as no tobj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm the de ni a l of

hi s § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. AF F I RME D.