2005 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 6-30-2005 

# B e neshun a s v

. K le m P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2469

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Be ne shun as v

. K le m" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 938. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/938NOT P 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

___________ N O . 04- 2469

___________ J O SEPH BE N ESH U N A S, A ppel l ant

v. EDW AR D K LEM ; ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE C O M M O N W E A L T H O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

___________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 02- 1086) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure, Jr.

___________ A r gued J une 7, 2005 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, V A N A N T W E R PE N and B E C K E R , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2005 ) 

### Jul e s Eps t e i n ( Argue d) Ka i ry s , Rudovs ky , Eps t e i n & Me s s i ng, LLP 9 2 4 C h erry

S treet Sui t e 500 Phi l a de lphi a , PA 19107 Couns e lfor

the Appe l l ant2



### J am e s F. Me nc oni( Argue d) Assi st ant Dis tric t Att orney Schuylkil l County

Co urthou se 4 0 1 N o rth2 n dS treet Pott s vi l l e , PA 17901 Co un se l for the App el le e

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge A p p e llan t Jo se p h B e n e sh u n a s a p p e a ls th e d e c isio n o f th e D istric t C o u rt to d e n yh is pet i t i on forhabea s corpus r el i ef. B enes hunas ar gues thathi s tr i al att orneyw as i neff ect i ve beca us e he f

ai l ed t o obj ectt o t he cl os i ng ar gum entof the pr os ecut orw ho r efe r ence d B enes hunas ’ s deci s i on t o end hi s i nt ervi ew w i th the pol i ce a nd i nvoke hi s r i ghtt o an a tto rn e yo n c e h e lea rn e d th a t th e w o m a n h e sh o t h a d d ied . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e l o w, we a f

f i r m. I . FACTS B e c a u s e w e w ri te o n ly f o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e w ill r e c o u n t o n ly th e re le v a n t f a c ts . J os eph B enes hunas s hotand ki l l ed hi s form ergi r l fr i end, V anes s a M ar i e B ogo, i n the ear l ym orni ng hour s of M ay29, 1995. B enes hunas confr ont ed B ogo w hi l e s he w as re tu rn in g to h e r te m p o ra ryre sid e n c e w ith so m e o f h e r g irlfr ien d s. A f

ter a b rie f

a rg u m e n t, B enes hunas fi r ed fi ve s hot s fr om a s emi - aut om at i c pi s t ol . O ne s hots truck B ogo i n the h a n d ; th e o th e r stru c k h e r in th e h e a d a n d p ro v e d f a tal.3

Fol l ow i ng the s hoot i ng, B enes hunas w as t aken t o the Shenandoa h Pol i ce D epart m ent . A ft erhe w as gi ven hi s M i r anda w arni ngs , he exe cut ed a w r i t t en w ai verof h is ri g h ts a n d g a v e th e P o lic e C h ie f a n o ra l s ta te m e n t a s to th e e v e n ts o f th e e v e n in g . W h e n B e n e s h u n a s le a rn e d th a t B o g o h a d d ie d , th e in te rv ie w te rm in a te d . B eneshu nas w as charged w i th fir st -degree m urder i n the C ou rtof C om m on P l eas, Schuy l ki l l C ounty , Penns y l vani a. A ttr i al , B enes hunas att empt ed t o s how thathe di d not h a v e th e re q u isite in ten t re q u ire d f o r a f irst-d e g re e m u rd e r c o n v ictio n . D u rin g th e trial, th e p ro se c u to r e licite d tes tim o n yf ro m P o lice C h ief

R e e se th a t B e n e sh u n a s b rie f ly di s cus s ed the eve nt s of the ni ghtof the s hoot i ng, butt erm i nat ed the i nt ervi ew and as ked f o r a law y e r w h e n h e lea rn e d th a t B o g o h a d d ied . B e n e sh u n a s’s c o u n se l o b jec ted to th is l i ne of que s t i oni ng and the tr i al courts us t ai ned hi s obj ect i on. B enes hunas then t es t i fi ed abouthi s i nt ervi ew w i th Pol i ce Chi ef Rees e and s t at ed thati tw as R ees e w ho s ugges t ed theyend the i nt ervi ew . H e s t at ed thathe neve ras ked for a l aw y erthatni ghtand j us tw ant ed t o t el l the pol i ce w hathappene d. D ur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , the pr os ecut ors t at ed the fol l ow i ng: H e neve rs ai d t o hi m [the C hi ef] , oh, I acc i dent al l y sh o t h er. H e di dn’ ts ay anythi ng l i ke that t o hi m . H e as ked a c oupl e of t i m es how V anes s a w as . T he chi ef di dn’ tknow . Subse quentl y it came t o pas s thats he di ed, and he o v erh ea rd th at. W h at did h e d o then ? W h at d id h e d o ? H e a sk ed fo r a law y er. H e t erm i nat ed thati nt erview . T h e chi ef di dn’ teven ge tt o the i nves t i gat i ve t i me wh e r e y o u wr i t e d o wn o r h a v e th e d e f e n d a n twr i t e d o wn a s t a t e me n t . He di dn’ teven ge tthatfar . T he end, fi ni s hed bus i ness. A ll the chi ef ha d w as s o me n o t e s a s h e wa s ma k i n g a s th e d e f e n d a n t wa s t a l k i n g . Di d n ’ te v e n c o me cl os e t o compl et i ng the i nt ervi ew , not even cl os e. H ow about that as a fa ct or to g e t in sid e th e d e f

e n d a n t’s m in d w h a t h e w a s th in k in g a b o u t th a t n ig h t.4 L et ’ s l ook ats om e otherthings thatI thi nk go t o s how y ou the defe ndant ’ s s peci fi c i nt ent and w hetherornothe ac t ed w i th m al i ce thatni ght

. . . . (A p p ell an t A p p . at 29 . ) B en esh u n as c lai m s tha t th ese co m m en ts bythe p rose cu tor w ere b a rre d b yG rif

f in v . C a lifo rn ia, 3 8 0 U .S . 6 0 9 , 6 1 5 (1 9 6 5 ), w h ich h e ld th a t “th e F if th A m endment , i n i t s di r ectappl i cat i on t o the Feder al G overnm ent , and i n i t s bear i ng on t he St at es byr eas on of the Four t eenth A m endment , forbi ds ei thercomm entbythe p ro se c u tio n o n th e a c c u se d ’s s ilen c e o r in stru c tio n s b yth e c o u rt th a t su c h sile n c e is e v id e n c e o f

g u ilt.” H ow ever , atthe t i m e of hi s tr i al , B enes hunas ’ s couns el di d notobj ectt o the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s . B ens hunas w as convi ct ed of f i r s t - degr ee mur derand s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . H i s tr i al couns el cont i nued t o r epr es enthi m on di r ectappea l , but the court s deni ed r el i ef. B enes hunas then s oughtr el i ef pur s uantt o Penns y l vani a’ s PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . §§ 9541- 9546, and r ai s ed numer ous i s s ues , i ncl udi ng the c lai m o f in ef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel b ef o re this C o u rt . D u ri n g the e v iden ti ary hear i ng, B enes hunas ’ s tr i al couns el w as ques t i oned ext ens i vel yabouthi s fai l ur e t o obj ect to th e p ro se c u to r’s c lo sin g sta tem e n ts re g a rd in g B e n e sh u n a s’s in v o c a tio n o f th e rig h t to couns el . B enes hunas ’ s tr i al couns el cl ai m ed thathe bel i eved he had opene d the doorfor su ch a statem en t. H e e x p lai n ed that p art of h is tri al strateg yw as to su g g est t o the ju ry thatthe verydamni ng s t at emental l egedl ygi ven byB enes hunas t o R ees e w as fabr i cat ed,T h is C o u rt re q u e ste d b rie f in g o n th e q u e stio n o f

w h e th e r a sta n d -a lo n e F if th 1 A m e n d m e n t cla im w a s p ro c e d u ra llyd e f a u lted in sta te c o u rt. C o u n se l f o r th e A p p e llan t, in a sw if t an d su b sta n tiv e lyc o rre c t lette r b rie f , co n f irm e d th a t th e F if

th A m e n d m e n t cla im w a s n o t p re s e rv e d b yo b je c tio n a t tr ia l a n d w a s n o t liti g a te d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l.

5 a s e v id e n c e b yth e f

a c t th a t B e n e s h u a n s d id n o t s ig n it. A ft eran evi dent i aryhear i ng, the courtdeni ed r el i ef. B enes hunas appea l ed t o the P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p e r i o rCo u r ta n d f i l e d a P e t i t i o n f

o rAl l o wa n c e o f

Ap p e a l t o th e S u p r e me C o u rt o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. A f

ter th e se ro u tes p ro v e d u n su c c e ss f u l, he f iled a P e tit io n f

o r w rit of habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he mat t erw as r efe rr ed t o a M agi s tr at e J udge w ho i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on ur gi ng deni al of the Pet i t i on. O n M ay18, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or derdeny i ng r el i ef a nd adopt i ng th e R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e M a g istra te J u d g e . O n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , this C o u rt is s u e d a lim ite d C e rt if ic a te o f A p p e a la b ility. I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overB enes hunas ’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 . T h is C o u rth as ju ri sd ict ion o v er the ap p ea l byv irtue o f o u r g ran t of a C erti fica te of

A p p ea labili tyan d 2 8 U . S . C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 . T h is C o u rt gr ant ed a Cer t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i ty“l i m i t ed t o the i s s ue of w hethertr i al couns el ren d ere d co n sti tuti o n all yinef fe cti v e a ssist an ce b yfa il ing to o b ject t o the p rose cu tor’s comm ent s on hi s pos t - arr es ts i l ence and i nvocat i on of hi s r i ghtt o couns el dur i ng cl os i ng a rg u m e n t.” 1F u r th e r mo r e , h e n o t e d th a tP e n n s y l v a n i a ’ s P o s t - Co n v i c t i o n Re l i e f Ac td o e s n o ta l l o w a peti t i on er t o rai se a free- st and i ng F i ft h A m end m ent cl ai m , bu ti nst ead, tho se cl ai m s m ust come t hr ough an i neff

ect i venes s cl ai m . C ouns el forthe A ppel l ee a gr eed thatthi s w as an a c c u r a t e a n d o b

j e c t i v e s t a t e me n to f

th e l a w. 6 W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons i n a habe as pr ocee di ng and appl ya cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d t o fac tual fi ndi ngs i n di s put e. W er t s v. V au g h n , 2 2 8 F . 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 9 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). III . A N A L Y S IS “[ T ]he w ri t of

h ab ea s co rpu s h as h ist o ri ca ll yb ee n reg ard ed as a n ex tr ao rdin ary r emedy , a bul w ark agai ns tconvi ct i ons thatvi ol at e funda m ent al fai rnes s . E ngl e v. I s aac , 456 U . S. 107, 126, 71 L . E d. 2d 783, 102 S. C t . 1558 ( 1982) ( quot i ng W ai nw r i ghtv. S yk e s, su p ra , at 9 7 (S T E V E N S , J., c o n c u rrin g )). T h o se f e w w h o a re u lti m a tely s ucce s s ful [i n obt ai ni ng habea s r el i ef] ar e per s ons w hom s oci etyhas gr i evous l yw r onged a nd fo rw ho m bel a t e d l i be r a t i on i s l i t t l e e no ug h c ompe ns a t i on . Fa yv. N oi a , 37 2 U. S. 39 1, 44 0- 44 1, 9 L. Ed. 2d 83 7, 83 S. Ct . 82 2 ( 19 63 ) . ” Br e c htv. A br a ha mso n, 50 7 U. S. 6 1 9 , 6 3 3 -63 4 (19 9 3 ) (alt era ti o n s in the o ri g inal) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A p e tit io n f

o r h a b e a s c o rp u s is g o v e rn e d b y2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , w h ich sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: ( d) A n appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus on behal f of a per s on i n cus t ody p u rsu a n t to th e ju d g m e n t o f a S tate c o u rt sh a ll n o t b e g ra n ted w ith re sp e c t to anycl ai m that w as adj ud i cat ed on the m eri t s i n St at e cou rt proceed i ng s unles s th e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

th e c l a i m– ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i sh ed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; orT he ques t i on i n t hi s appea l i s w hetherdefe ns e couns el w as i neff ect i ve bec aus e he 2 fai l ed t o obj ectt o t he pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent . I ti s undi s put ed thatthe habe as s t andar ds di s cus s ed above appl yi n thi s exami nat i on. H ow ever , the s t at e court ’ s deci s i on turned on an i nt erpr et at i on of the Fi fth A m endment . W e bel i eve thatthe habe as s t andar ds a p p lyto th e sta te c o u rt’s in terp re tatio n o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se it i s n e c e ss a ryto its in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im . T h is re a s o n in g is s u p p o rt e d b yth e te x t o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ) w h ich sa y s th a t th e u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n c lau se a p p lies w h e re th e sta te c o u rt d e c is io n “ in v o lv e d a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f , c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d F e d e ra l la w .” 7 (2 ) re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts i n lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in th e S tate courtpr ocee di ng. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 )-( 2 ). W e maygr anta w r i tunderthe “c ontr aryt o” cl aus e i f w e conc l ude thatthe s t at eco u rtd ec isi o n co n tr ad ict s the g o v ern ing law as se t fo rth b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt , o r diff ers f ro m a d e c is io n o f

th e S u p re m e C o u rt m a d e o n m a te ri a lly in d is tin g u is h a b le f a c ts . W i l l i ams v. T ay l or , 529 U . S. 362, 412- 13 ( 2000) . U nderthe “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” clau se w e m ayg ran t a w ri t i f th e state c o u rtiden ti fied the c o rrect S u p rem e C o u rt pr ece dent , butappl i ed i tt o t he fa ct s i n an unr eas onabl e manner . I d. at413. “A fede r al hab eas cou rtm ayno tgrantrel i ef un der the ‘unreasona ble appl i cat i on ’ cl ause un l ess a s t at e court ’ s appl i cat i on of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw w as obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e; an incorr ectapp l i cat i on of f ederal l aw al on e do es not w arr ant r el i ef. ” K el l er v. L arki ns, 251 F. 3d 408, 418 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e mayal s o gr anta w r i tunder§ 2254( d) ( 2) i f the s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n w a s b a s e d o n a n o b je c tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n . M i l l er - E l v. C ockr el l , 537 U . S. 322, 340 ( 2003) . W i th thatunder s t andi ng, w e begi n our exami nat i on. 2(em p h asis ad d ed ). 8 A . T he I nef

f ect i ve A s s i s t ance I nqu i ry R el y i ng on C om m onw eal th v. K i m bal l , 724 A . 2d 326, 330 ( Pa. 1999) , the Super i or C our tdet erm i ned thatB enes hunas ’ s couns el w as noti neff ect i ve. I n K i m bal l , the S u p re m e C o u rt o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia e x p lain e d th a t: [t ]he pet i t i onerm us ts t i l l s how , bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w hi ch, i n the ci r cumst ance s of the part i cul ar cas e, s o underm i ned the truth- det erm i n i n g p r o c e s s thatno r el i abl e adj udi cat i on o f g u il t o r in n o c e n c e c o u ld h a v e tak e n p lac e . T h is re q u ire s th e p e tit io n e r to s how : ( 1) thatthe cl ai m i s of ar guabl e mer i t ; ( 2) thatco u n sel had no r eas onabl e s tr at egi c bas i s forhi s orheract i on ori nact i on; and, ( 3) that , butfor the err or s and om i s s i ons of counse l , ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythatthe o u tc o m e o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t. Id . W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthi s s t andar d comport s w i th the l eadi ng Supr eme C our tcas e addr es s i ng i neff ect i venes s of couns el . I n St r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a p e tit io n e r se e k in g to h a v e h is c o n v ictio n o v e rtu rn e d b e c a u se h is c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e m u st s h o w b o th th a t h is couns el w as defe ct i ve and thathi s defe ns e w as pr ej udi ced bythi s defe ct i ve per form ance . P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s s tan d a rd c o m p o rts w ith th e sta n d a rd se t f o rth b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in St r i ckl and. W ert s , 228 F. 3d at204. A l though t he Super i orC our ti dent i fi ed the pr opers t andar d of r evi ew , B enes hunas cl ai m s thatthe Super i orC our tconduct ed no Str i ckl and ana l y s i s , butbas ed i t s deci s i on on a presum pti on that “because t ri al cou nsel professed t o h ave a st rat egythat i tw as, as a9

m att erof fa ctand l aw , a r eas onabl e one. ” ( B r i ef of A ppel l antat23. ) W e di s agr ee. T he fi r s tpartof the Str i ckl and ana l y s i s r equi r es the r evi ew i ng courtt o det erm i ne

“ w h e th e r c o u n s e l’ s a s s is ta n c e w a s re a s o n a b le c o n s id e ri n g a ll o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” S trick lan d , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 8 . W e a re c a u tio n e d th a t o u r e v a lu a tio n sh o u ld b e h ig h ly defe r ent i al t o couns el and thatw e mustm ake e veryeff or t“t o el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng e f f e c ts o f h in d sig h t, t o re c o n stru c t th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f c o u n se l’s c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t, a n d to e v a lu a te th e c o n d u c t f ro m c o u n s e l’ s p e rs p e c tiv e a t th e tim e .” Id . a t 6 8 9 . T he Super i orC our texpl ai ned thatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectdur i ng the p ro se c u to r’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t w a s b a se d , in p a rt, o n h is b e lief th a t h e h a d “ leg iti m a tely ‘op en ed the d o o r’ t o that li n e o f in q u iry . ” (A p p ell an t A p p . at 94 . ) T h e S u p erior C o u rt agr eed thatno Fi fth A m endmentvi ol at i on occurr ed. W e ther efor e begi n byexami ni ng the under l y i ng Fi fth A m endmenti s s ue. B . T he F i f

t h A m endm ent I nqu i ry T he Super i orC our tr es t ed i t s deci s i on on C openhef erv. R obi ns on, 719 A . 2d 242 ( Pa. 1998) w hi ch i n turn r el i ed t o t he Supr eme C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. R obi ns on, 485 U . S. 25, 31 ( 1988) . I n R obi ns on, the C our thel d: W here the prosecut or on h i s ow n ini t i at i ve asks t he juryt o d raw an ad verse i nference f

rom a def

end ant’ s si l ence, G ri ffi n h olds that the p ri vil ege ag ai nst compul s orys el f- i ncr i m i nat i on i s vi ol at ed. B utw h ere as i n thi s cas e the p ro se c u to r’s re f

e re n c e to th e d e f

e n d a n t’s o p p o rtu n ityto tes tifyis a f a ir r es po n s e t o a c l a i m ma d e b y d e f e n d a n t o r h i s c o u n s e l , we th i n k th e r e i s no vi ol at i on of the pr i vi l ege. I d. at32. T he Super i orC our texpl ai ned thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ementi n hi s cl os i ng w as10

a re sp o n se to B e n e sh u n a s’s tes tim o n yth a t h e n e v e r a sk e d f o r a law y e r a n d ju st w a n ted to tel l th e p o li ce w h at ha d h ap p en ed . (A p p ell an t A p p . at 94 . ) B e n e sh u n a s a rg u e s th a t th e S u p e rio r C o u rt e rre d in tw o re sp e c ts. F irst, B enes hunas cl ai m s thatthe Super i orC our tdeci s i on fai l s t o m ent i on thati tw as the p ro s e c u to r w h o f

ir s t e lic ite d te s tim o n yre g a rd in g B e n e s h u n a s ’s in v o c a tio n o f h is ri g h ts . S econ d, he clai m s that the p rosecut or’ s com m ents w ent bey on d si m plyi m peach i ng his t es t i m ony , butw er e us ed as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence t o r ebutthe cl ai m thatthe s hoot i ng w as ac cide n tal . (B ri ef

o f A p p ell an t at2 4 . ) a . T h e P rosecutor’s Com m en t s W ere P roperl

y L ab eled a R espon se B enes hunas ar gues thatthe Super i orC our t ’ s deci s i on w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e fa ctual det erm i nat i on beca us e i tdes cr i bes the Pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum entas a “r es pons e” t o B enes hunas ’ s t es t i m ony . H e poi nt s outthati tw as r eal l yt he pr os ecut orw ho i ni t i al l yel i ci t ed t es t i m onyfr om the pol i ce c hi ef r egar di ng hi s r eques tfor a la w y e r d u ri n g q u e s tio n in g . A s a f a c tu a l m a tter, th e S u p e rio r C o u rt d id n o t er r. T h e p ro se c u to r m a d e h is clos ing stat em en t after all o f th e e v iden ce h ad b ee n p rese n ted, i n clud ing B en esh u n as’s t es t i m onythathe s i m pl yw ant ed t o t el l the pol i ce w hathappene d. I n thats ens e, the pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng r emar ks w er e a “ r es pons e” t o B enes hunas ’ s ent i r e def ens e, i ncl udi ng hi s t es t i m ony . T he fa ctthatcert ai n m att er s fi r s tar os e dur i ng the pr os ecut or ’ s cas e- i nc h ie f d o e s n o t m e a n th a t h is la te r r e f e re n c e to th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s th e o ry is n o t a “ re s p o n s e .”11

F u rth e rm o re , if th e p ro se c u to r “ o p e n e d th e d o o r,” B e n e sh u n a s k ick e d it d o w n w ith te s tim o n yth a t w e n t b e y o n d a n ye f f o rt to re b u t th e s ta te m e n ts m a d e b yth e p o lic e c h ie f. H is tria l stra teg yw a s to d isc re d it R e e se a n d d e m o n stra te th a t h e d id n o t f o rm th e in ten t to ki l l and t o t hatend he t es t i fi ed thathe ful l ycooper at ed w i th the pol i ce. A s the Super i or C our texpl ai ned: R egar di ng hi s cooper at i on w i th the pol i ce, appel l antt es t i fi ed attr i al on di r ect e x a m in a tio n th a t “ I n e v e r a s k e d f o r a la w y e r t h a t n ig h t, n e v e r a t a n yp o in t.” He c o n t e n d e d th a twh e n th e n e ws o f th e v i c t i m’ s d e a th a rr i v e d , “ I b r o k e d o wn an d start ed t o cryand then C hi ef Rees e s ai d ‘ B enny , y ou bett ernots ay anythi ng el s e unt i l y ou get a l aw y er . ’ I s ai d okay . ” A ppel l antfur theras s ert ed, “N o, I neveras ked fora l aw y er . H e - I di dn’ teven w anta l aw y er . I j us tknew - I k n e w w h a t h a p p e n e d . I j u s t w a n te d to te ll th e m w h a t h a p p e n e d .” ( A ppel l antA pp. at92) ( emphasi s added) . A ft erthe C our ts us t ai ned an obj ect i on by defe ns e couns el t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s l i ne of que s t i on, B enes hunas r evi s i t ed hi s cooper at i on w i th the pol i ce i n hi s ow n t es t i m ony . H e di dn’ tj us tdenythathe r eques t ed a l aw y er , but u rg e d th a t h e w a n ted to f u llyc o o p e ra te w ith th e p o lice . T h e S u p e rio r C o u rt d id n o t er r in la b e lin g th e p ro s e c u to r’ s c lo s in g s ta te m e n t a “ re s p o n s e .” Forthes e s ame r eas ons , the fa ctthatthe pr os ecut orel i ci t ed t es t i m onyfi r s tdoes not change the l egal cons equenc es . T he Super i orC our tfound thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum entw as a r es pons e t o t he B enes hunas ’ s t es t i m onythathe coope r at ed w i th the p o li ce an d there fo re h ad n o inten t t o k il l. Itco n clud ed that u n d er relev an t Su p rem e C o u rt pr ece dentthi s w as perm i s s i bl e. T hatthe Super i orC our tfound i ti rr el evantthatthe pr os ecut orfi r s tel i ci t ed t es t i m onyr egar di ng B enes hunas ’ s i nvocat i on of hi s r i ght s i s not12

c o n tr a ry to o r, a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f , S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. b . T he SuperiorCourt ’s D eci s i on R egar ding the S c o p e o f th e Co m m e n ts W

a s N o t U n re a so n a b le In a m o re c o m p e lli n g a rg u m e n t, B e n e sh u n a s c laim s th e p ro se c u to r’s c lo sin g d id m o re th a n re b u t h is te stim o n y ; ite n c o u ra g e d th e ju ryto in f e r g u iltf ro m h is e x e rc ise o f

h is r i ghtt o couns el . ( B r i ef of A ppel l antat28. ) Speci fi cal l y , B enes hunas di r ect s our att ent i on t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement , “H ow aboutthatas a fa ct ort o geti ns i de the d e f e n d a n t’s m in d w h a t h e w a s th in k in g th a t n ig h t. L e t’s lo o k a t so m e o th e r th in g s th a t I th in k g o to sh o w y o u th e d e f e n d a n t’s s p e c if

ic in ten t an d w h e th e r o r n o t h e a c ted w ith m a lice th a t n ig h t . . . . ” (A p p e llan t A p p . at 2 9 .) B e n e sh u n a s m a in tain s th a t, t a k e n in cont ext , thi s can be r ead a s nothi ng el s e butpr oof of s t at e of mi nd. A lth o u g h B en esh u n as ra ises a c o m p ell ing issue , o u r rev iew o f th e state c o u rt ’s deci s i on i s s ever el yci r cumscr i bed. A s s t at ed above , w e ca n onl ygr anta habe as pet i t i on i f the Super i orC our t ’ s deci s i on i s contr aryt o the governi ng l aw as s etfor th bythe S u p re m e C o u rt, d if

f e re n t th a n a d e c isio n o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt m a d e o n m a ter ially i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

a c t s , o ra n o b

j e c t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e c o rr e c tS u p r e me C our tpr ece dent . W i l l i ams v. T ay l or , 529 U . S. at405- 09. A ccor di ngl y , w e turn t o the re le v a n t c a s e la w . In R o b in so n , 4 8 5 U .S . at 3 1 , the C o u rt d e c lin e d to “ tak e th e v iew th a t an y‘d ire c t’ re f e re n c e b yth e p ro se c u to r to th e f a ilu re o f th e d e f e n d a n t to tes tifyv io late s th e F if th A m endmentas cons trued i n G r i ffi n. ” The C our tw enton t o expl ai n:13

“[The] centr al purpos e of a cr i m i nal tr i al i s t o deci de the fac tual ques t i on of the def endant ' s gui l tori nnocenc e, U ni t ed St at es v. N obl es , 422 U . S. 225 (1 9 7 5 ) . . . .” D e law a re v . V a n A r s d a ll , 4 7 5 U .S . 6 7 3 , 6 8 1 (1 9 8 6 ). T o th is end i t i s i mpo r t a n tth a tb o th th e d e f e n d a n ta n d th e p r o s e c u t o rh a v e the oppor t u n i tyt o me e tf

a i r l yt h e e v i d e n c e a n d a r g u me n t s o f o n e a n o th e r . T he b ro a d d ic ta in G ri f

f in to th e e f

f e c t th a t t h e F if

th A m e n d m e n t ‘ f

o rb id s . . . com m ent bythe p rosecut i on on the accused ’s si l ence,’ 38 0 U . S . , at61 5, m ust b e tak e n in th e lig h t o f

th e f a c ts o f th a t ca se . It i s o n e th in g to h o ld , a s w e d id i n G r i ffi n, that the pr os ecut or m ay not tr eat a defe ndant ' s exer ci s e of hi s r i ght to re m a in sile n t a t tria l a s su b sta n tiv e e v id e n c e o f g u ilt ; it is q u ite a n o th e r to ur ge, as defen d an t does her e, thatthe s ame r eas oni ng w oul d forbi d the pr os ecut orfr om fai rl y res pondi ng t o an ar gum entof the def endantby advert i ng t o t hat s i l ence . T her e maybe s om e ‘ cos t ’ t o the def endanti n havi ng r emai ned s i l enti n eac h s i tuat i on, butw e dec l i ne t o expand G r i ffi n t o pr ecl ude a fa i rr es pons e bythe pr os ecut ori n s i tuat i ons s uch as the pr es entone. Id . a t 3 3 -3 4 . I tappea r s thatthe C our thas noty ets ett l ed the ques t i on of w hethera pr os ecut or m aypr oper l yus e the def endant ’ s i nvocat i on of hi s r i ght s as both a r ebutt al t o a s t at ement b ya d e f e n d a n t and

s ubs t ant i ve evi dence of hi s gui l t . I ndeed, J us t i ce M ar s hal l r ai s ed conce rns aboutthi s i s s ue i n hi s di s s enti n R obi ns on, w hen he s t at ed: the C our t ’ s s ugges t i on thatw hethera com m entvi ol at es G r i ffi n depends on w hetheri ti s a r es pons e t o the def ens e i s m uddl ed. A comm entm ayw el l be a r es pons e t o the def

ens e and ne verthel es s be pr eci s el ythe ki nd of s t at ementthat ourhol di ngs i n G r i ffi n and W i l s on w er e des i gned t o el i m i nat e. I f, forexampl e, a def endant ' s couns el ar gues attr i al thatthe def endant fai l ed t o t ake the s t and i n or dert o pr ot ect another per s on, and the pr os ecut i on r es ponds thatthe true ex p lanat i on i s thatthe def endanti s gui l tyas s i n, the pr os ecut i on’ s comm ent r es ponds t o the defe ns e, but i tneverthel es s i nvi t es the j uryt o i nfergui l tfr om the def endant ' s deci s i on not t o t es t i fy . Such a comm ent vi ol at es G r i ffi n under anyr eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of thatcas e. Id . a t 4 0 -4 1 (f

o o tn o te o m itte d ). I n thi s cas e, the def

ens e pr es ent ed evi dence thatthe def endantcooper at ed w i th the14

pol i ce i n or dert o encour age a n i nfer ence as t o hi s s t at e of mi nd. T he pr os ecut i on re sp o n d e d th a t th e e v id e n c e d id n o t su p p o rt th e c laim th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o m p lete ly cooper at i ve w i th t he pol i ce, and us ed thi s evi dence t o chal l enge the i nfer ence thatthe d ef en se a tt em p ted to d raw . In li g h t of R o b inso n , w e c an n o t saythat the S u p erior C o u rt w as unr eas onabl e i n i t s hol di ng thatther e w as no Fi fth A m endmentvi ol at i on. E ven i f t he S up eri or C ou rt ’s decis i on w as unreasonab l e, this i s such a close q u esti o n that w e c an n o t saythat tr ial co u n sel w as d ef ec ti v e. W e m u st m ak e e v eryef fo rt “t o el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng eff ect s of hi nds i ght , t o r econs tructthe ci r cumst ance s of couns el ’ s chal l enged c onduct , and t o eval uat e the conduc tfr om couns el ’ s per s pect i ve at the tim e.” S tr icklan d , 4 6 6 U . S . at 66 9 . D ef en se c o u n sel w as try ing to u se h is cl ient’s cooper at i on w i th t he pol i ce a s evi dence of hi s m ent al s t at e. A tthe cl os i ng ar gum ents t age o f th e trial, h e w o u ld h a v e h a d a d if f icu lt t im e m a k in g th e c a se th a t th e p ro se c u to r h a d to curb hi s r efe r ence s t o t he s ame evi dence he s oughtt o us e. F o r th e re a so n s s e t o u t ab o v e , w e a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.15

B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge , co n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d c o n c u rrin g th e ju d g m e n t. I j oi n i n J udge V an A ntw erpen’ s w el l - r eas oned opi ni on exce ptforpartI I I . A . 1. b, i n w hi ch he c oncl udes thatther e w as no Fi fth A m endmentvi ol at i on. I j oi n i n the j udgm entbeca us e the onl yi s s ue ce r t i fi ed forappea l i s w hethertr i al couns el r ender ed inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce in f

ail ing to o b

ject t o the p rose cu tor’s vio lat ion o f B en esh u n as’s Fi fth A m endmentr i ght s , and I agr ee w i th J udge V an A ntw erpen thatther e w as no i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance . T he s ubs t ant i ve Fi fth A m endmentcl ai m w as notr ai s ed attr i al or o n d ire c t ap p e a l an d w a s w a iv e d f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

sta te c o llate ra l re v iew . B e n e sh u n a s is thus obl i ged t o conce de thatanyfr ees t andi ng Fi fth A m endmentcl ai m w oul d be p ro c e d u ra llyd e f

a u lted a n d u n a v a ilab le in h a b e a s, a n d to p re se n t ito n lya s a p a rt o f h is i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . M ydi s cus s i on of the Fi fth A m endmentcl ai m , l i ke J udge V an A ntw erpen’ s , i s ther efor e s ubs i di aryt o m yul t i m at e conc l us i ons abouti neff ect i ve as s i s t ance . I. M ydi s agr eementw i th t he O pi ni on of the C our ts t ems fr om i t s s t at ementthat“the [ S u p re m e ] C o u rt h a s n o t y e t se ttl e d th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r a p ro se c u to r m a yp ro p e rly u s e th e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s i n v o c a t i o n o f

h i s r i g h t s a s b o th a r e b u t t a l t o a s t a t e m e n tb y a d e f e n d a n t and

s ubs t ant i ve evi dence of hi s gui l t . ” A n te at 12 -13 . B u t th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s l anguage i s pl ai n: “I ti s one thi ng t o hol d, as w e di d i n G r i f f i n [ v . C a lif

o rn ia , 380 U . S. 609 (1 9 6 5 )], th a t th e p ro se c u to r m a yn o t trea t a d e f e n d a n t’s e x e rc ise o f

h is rig h t to re m a in16

s i l entattr i al as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence of gui l t. . . . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , 48 5 U. S. 2 5 , 3 4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T h i s m a k e s i tp e r f e c t l y c l e a rth a ta p r o s e c u t o rm a y notus e an i nvocat i on of r i ght s as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence of gui l t . T hi s i s j us tas true of pos t - arr es ti nvocat i on of Mi r anda r i ght s as i ti s of the i nvocat i on of the r i ghtnott o t es t i fyattr i al . T he Mi r anda r i ght s t o s i l ence and an a t t orneyw oul d be meani ngl es s w i thouta conc om i t antguar ant ee th a t u s in g th e m w ill n o t h a rm th e d e f e n d a n t. S e e D o

y le v . O h io , 426 U . S. 610, 617 ( “[E] verypos t - arr es ts i l ence i s i ns ol ubl yambi guous beca us e of w hatthe St at e i s r equi r ed to ad v ise th e p erso n arrested . ”). I agr ee w i th J udge V an A ntw erpen thatthe def ens e s tr at egyi nvi t ed comm entand r ebutt al bythe pr os ecut i on. B enes hunas ’ s defe ns e w as one of a cci dent , and he pr es ent ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence of hi s noncul pabl e s t at e of mi nd: he s t ay ed atthe s cene aft erthe s hoot i ng, att empt ed t o ai d B ogo, w entqui et l yw i th pol i ce, and as ked r epea t edl yabout B ogo’ s heal th. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thathe had s poken fr eel yw i th the pol i ce a nd thatC hi ef R ees e, notB enes hunas , had s ugges t ed thathe geta l aw y eraft erl earni ng of B ogo’ s death. B enes hunas ’ s t es t i m onyon thes e poi nt s w as contr adi ct ed, t o s om e ext ent , byC hi ef R eese’ s. T he pr os ecut orw as thus w el l w i thi n hi s r i ght s t o comm enti n hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent s on thi s evi dence . H e had e veryr i ghtt o s ugges tthatB enes hunas ’ s ver s i on of event s w as fal s e, and eve n thatB enes hunas ’ s cooper at i on w as w oeful l yi ncompl et e and h e n c e w a s n o t as su b sta n tial e v id e n c e o f in n o c e n c e a s th e d e f

e n se c laim e d . B u t h is17

latitu d e w a s lim ited to a f a ir re p ly : R obi ns on ’s “ in v ited re sp o n se ” d o c trin e “ m e a n [ s] th a t a prosecutorm ayneu tral i ze i m proper defe nse argum ents bu tm ayno trel yon them as a

‘ s pr i ngboar d’ forthe l aunchi ng of af fi r m at i ve att acks upon the def endant [] . I n other w or ds , the doctr i ne’ s r eac h i s l i m i t ed t o defe ns i ve, as oppos ed t o offe ns i ve, conductof the pr os ecut or . ” U

nited S tates v. P un gitore , 910 F. 2d 1084, 1126- 27 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( ci t at i on o m itted). I have l i t t l e doubtthatthe pr os ecut i on’ s comm ent s her e w entw el l bey ond the s cope of a fa i rr es pons e. T he di s put ed s ect i on of the cl os i ng ar gum entbar el ym ent i ons B enes hunas ’ s t es t i m ony , orhi s cont ent i ons thathe coope r at ed. I ns t ead, the cl os i ng us ed B en esh u n as’s inv o ca ti o n o f h is r igh ts as su b stan ti v e e v iden ce o f h is gu il t: “H e a sk ed fo r a l aw y er . H e t erm i nat ed thati nt ervi ew . . . . D i dn’ teven c om e cl os e t o compl et i ng the i nt ervi ew , notcl os e. H ow aboutthatas a fa ct ort o geti ns i de the def endant ’ s m i nd w hat h e w a s th in k in g th a t n ig h t.” T h e v e ryn e x t se n ten c e re f e rs to “ so m e o f

th e th in g s th a t I th in k g o to sh o w y o u th e d e f e n d a n t’s s p e c if

ic in ten t an d w h e th e r o r n o t h e a c ted w ith m al i ce thatni ght . ” The pr os ecut or ’ s m eani ng w as cl ear : B enes hunas as ked fora l aw y er b e c a u s e h e w a s g u i l ty. T h is im p e rm iss ib le a n d in f lam m a to ryu se o f

B e n e sh u n a s’s sile n c e w a s a p lain v i o l a t i o n o f

th e C o n s t i tu t i o n a s i n t e rp r e t e d b y D oyl e and R obi ns on . I w o u ld th e re f o re h o ld thatthe s t at e court s ’ contr arydeci s i on w as an obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the p re c e d e n ts u n d e r t h e A E D P A s ta n d a rd s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ); W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 52918

U . S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 -09 (20 0 0 ). II. N onethel es s , B enes hunas ’ s habea s cl ai m fai l s forthe r eas ons s etfor th i n the p en u lt im ate p ara g rap h o f th e O p inion o f th e C o u rt . W h il e I c o n clud e tha t th e p rose cu tor’s cl osi ng argum ent vi olat ed B eneshu nas’s F i ft h A m end m ent r i gh t s, I agr ee t hat defense couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cl ai m s uch a vi ol at i on w as notan “e rr or [] s o s er i ous thatcouns el w as notfunct i oni ng as the ‘ couns el ’ guar ant eed bythe Si xth A m endment . ” Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . C ouns el obj ect ed t o C hi ef Rees e’ s di r ect t es t i m onythatB enes hunas had as ked fora l aw y er , buthe appa r ent l yconcl uded thatt he cl os i ng ar gum entw as a fa i rr es pons e t o B enes hunas ’ s ow n t es t i m onyand w as not ther efor e a Fi fth A m endmentvi ol at i on. I not e thatthi s i s the conc l us i on r eac hed by se v e ra l u n a n im o u s s tate c o u rts a n d b yf o u r a b le a n d e x p e rie n c e d f e d e ra l ju d g e s: a M a g istra te J u d g e , a D istric t Ju d g e , an d tw o m e m b e rs o f th is p a n e l. M or e part i cul ar l y , I agr ee w i th the O pi ni on of the C our tthattr i al couns el m ade a

“ re a s o n a b le s tr a te g ic d e c is io n ” to w h ic h th is C o u rt s h o u ld b e “ h ig h ly d e f e re n tia l.” Mars hal lv. Hendr i cks , 307 F. 3d 36, 85 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . D efe ns e couns el chos e t o focus on B enes hunas ’ s cooper at i on w i th t he pol i ce, and r eas onabl y— al though, I bel i eve, w ro n g ly

— d e c id e d th a t th e p ro se c u to r’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t co n stitu ted a n u n o b jec tio n a b le re sp o n se to h is s tra teg y . O u r in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e ju risp ru d e n c e d o e s n o t allo w u s to s e c o n d -g u e s s th a t d e c is io n .19

B e c a u se I b e liev e th a t B e n e sh u n a s’s c o n v ictio n w a s o b tain e d in v io latio n o f h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , I am deepl ytr oubl ed byourdeci s i on nott o gr anta w r i tof habe as c o rp u s. N o n e th e les s, a lth o u g h I re g re t th a t th e p o stu re o f th is c a se (a n d th e a p p lica b le S tate p ro c e d u re s) c o m p e lled B e n e sh u n a s to w ra p h is p e rsu a siv e F if th A m e n d m e n t cla im in a les s v iab le in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e a rg u m e n t, I am c o n stra in e d to jo in in th e ju d g m e n t.