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 9-16-2005 

# B ud a v . S t ickm an 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 . 04-2655

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 author i 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 " B ud a v . S t ickm an" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 540. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/5401

NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 04- 2655 E DWARD A . BU DA

Pet i t i oner v. W IL L IA M S . S T IC K M A N , III; DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY OF W AY NE C OU NT; A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L 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 i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 03- C V - 00878 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember15, 2005 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , B A R R Y , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember16, 2005) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . A lleg e d lya t th e re c o m m e n d a tio n o f c o u n se l, E d w a rd A . B u d a p lea d e d g u iltyto2

fi r s tdegr ee mur deri n Penns y l vani a i n 1989 t o avoi d t he dea t h penal t y . H e s oughtand w as deni ed a pos t - convi ct i on evi dent i aryhear i ng i n s t at e courton w hetherhi s couns el r ender ed i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance i n vi ol at i on of the Si xth A m endment . I n a habe as pet i t i on in th e D istric t C o u rt, B u d a a g a in so u g h t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g to u n c o v e r f a c ts re late d to hi s couns el ’ s al l egedl yi neff ect i ve as s i s t ance butthatr eques tw as deni ed on the gr ound th a t h e h a d n o t p u rs u e d h is e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g in P e n n s y lv a n ia w ith s u f f ic ie n t d ilig e n c e . Ha v i n g r e v i e we d Bu d a ’ s s t a t e c o u r tp a p e r s i n l i g h to f th e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a tu t e a n d c a s e s , we w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tand r emand foran evi dent i aryhear i ng. I. I n 1996, a man unknow i ngl yw al ked i nt o t he bur gl aryof hi s hous e i n W ayne C ount y , Penns y l vani a and w as s hott o death bythe i ntruder ( s ) . N ear l ya y earl at er , B uda and thr ee other s w er e cha r ged w i t h, i nt eral i a, cr i m i nal hom i ci de. T he C ount yD i s t r i ct A t t orneyfi l ed n oti ces of ag gravat i ng ci rcum st ances ag ai nstthree of the m en as a p red icate to se ek ing the d ea th p en alty . B u d a w as o n e o f th o se m en ; th e o ther tw o w ere M i chae l W i l s on and D avi d M andevi l l e. W i l s on pl eade d gui l t yt o fi r s tdegr ee mur derand w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i n pr i s on pl us 40 t o 80 y ear s . M andevi l l e w entt o t r i al , w her e he w a s f o u n d g u iltyo f

m u rd e r a n d se n ten c e d to life in p riso n p lu s 8 to 1 8 y e a rs. T h e f o u rth co n fe d era te, D an iel Q u arles, plead ed g u il tyto third d eg ree m u rde r, rob b eryan d b u rglary and w as s ent ence d t o 18 t o 36 y ear s i n pr i s on. A ccor di ng t o B uda, aft erW i l s on and Q uar l es w er e s ent ence d, B uda pl eade d gui l t yt o fi r s tdegr ee mur deron t he advi ce of3

couns el . I n excha nge forB uda’ s pl ea, the C om m onw eal t h dr opped al l ot herchar ges and p ro m ise d n o t to se e k th e d e a th p e n a lty . In Ja n u a ry1 9 9 8 , B u d a w a s s e n ten c e d to life in pr i s on. B ud a did not di rect l yapp eal his sent ence, buti n N ov em ber 199 8 h e fi l ed a p ro se pet i t i on forr el i ef i n t he W ayne C ount yC our tof C om m on Pl eas underthe C om m onw eal t h’ s Post - C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( PC R A ) . I n t he pet i t i on, B uda cl ai m ed that he w as deni ed ef

fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el l eadi ng up t o hi s pl ea be caus e hi s at t orney “goade d [s i c] [hi m ] of hi s r i ghtt o t r i al byj ury , i n t hatcouns el fai l ed t o advi s e [hi m ] of t he mi t i gat i ng fac t or s i n [hi s ] behal f r egar di ng a s ent ence of dea t h. ” B uda al s o cl ai m ed t hathi s couns el “fa i l ed t o obj ectt o the degr ee of gui l t , i n t hatthe tr i al cour tl acke d a fac tual bas i s i n acc ept i ng a gui l t ypl ea of fi r s t - degr ee mur der , ” and he s oughtdi s coveryof “al l i nves t i gat i ve r epor t s gather ed i n thi s cas e, and courttr ans cr i pt s of the s ame . . . . ” In A u g u st 2 0 0 0 , w h ile B u d a ’s P C R A p e tit io n w a s p e n d in g , h e w ro te to h is s ent enci ng j udge t o r eques tt r ans cr i pt s of hi s gui l t ypl ea he ar i ng. I n t hatl ett er , B uda cl ai m ed thathis l aw y er l eading u p to sent encing w as

v eryco erc ive in h av ing m e b eli ev e I w o u ld rec eive n o lesser sen tenc e tha n the d ea th p en alty , ev en tho u g h n o w I reali ze I shou l d h ave n ever been tri ed fo r a capi t al case si nce there i s f a c tu a l ev id e n c e o f

a n in d e p e n d e n t ca u se f o r m yc o -d e f

e n d a n t to w an t [th e v ict im ] de ad , that I w as u n d er d u ress, [an d ] th at I w a s h e a v ily in to x ic a te d . . . . B uda al s o cl ai m ed thathe as ked hi s pr es ent , cour t - appoi nt ed l aw y ert o s ecur e the t r ans cr i pt s forhi m butt hats he had notdone s o. T hatat t orneym oved t o w i t hdr aw her4

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f

Bu d a i n J a n u a r y2 0 0 1 o n th e g r o u n d th a th i s p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n c l a i ms w e re w ith o u t m e ri t, a n d th a t s h e c o u ld id e n tif yn o o th e r c la im s a v a ila b le to h im . In Feb ruary20 01 , t he C ou rtof C om m on P l eas noti ced it s i ntent i on t o d i sm i ss B uda’ s PC R A cl ai m and gr ant ed B uda’ s couns el l eave t o w i t hdr aw . T he C our trul ed that B uda’ s t r i al couns el coul d nothave be en i neff ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o advi s e hi m of m i t i gat i ng fac t or s r egar di ng a dea t h s ent ence beca us e B uda w as nots ent ence d t o death. Fur t her , t he C our tr ej ect ed B uda’ s ar gum entt hathi s couns el “l acke d a fa ctual bas i s i n acc ept i ng a gui l t ypl ea of

fi r s tdegr ee mur der ” bec aus e, bypl eadi ng gui l t y , B uda w ai ved al l i s s ues “re lat ing to the su ff

ici en cyo f th e e v iden ce . ” T h e C o u rtd id n o t dir ec tl yad d ress B u d a’s r eques tforfur t herdi s covery , butconcl uded that“[n] o purpos e w oul d be s erved byany f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .” Ju st o v e r tw o w e e k s la ter , B u d a f iled a p ro se re sp o n se to th e C o u rt’s n o tice in w hich he asser t ed ineffecti ve assi st ance o f his pos t - convi ct i on co u n sel i n fa il ing to as sert that B u d a w as d en ied e ff ec ti v e a ssist an ce o f tri al co u n sel. B u d a a sk ed fo r an ev iden ti ary h e a rin g . In A u g u st 2 0 0 1 , the C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s d e n ied B u d a ’s m o tio n f o r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef a nd agai n concl uded that“no purpos e w oul d be s erved byanyfur t her pr ocee di ngs . ” B uda appe al ed t o t he Super i orC our t , w hi ch i n A ugus t2002 r ej ect ed B uda’ s cl ai m t hathi s pos t - convi ct i on couns el w as i neff ect i ve and hi s or i gi nal cl ai m t hat hi s t r i al couns el had bee n i neff ect i ve, and adopt ed the C om m on Pl eas C our t ’ s r eas oni ng as i t s ow n. I n D ece m ber2002, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed B uda’ s pet i t i on5

f o r a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l. I n J a nu a r y20 03 , Buda fi l e d a pe t i t i on fo ra w r i tof ha be a s c orpu s i n the U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, a pet i t i on l at ertr ans ferr ed t o the M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. I n thatpet i t i on, B uda as ked fora hea r i ng t o det erm i ne w h e th e r h e h a d b e e n d e n ied h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts b e c a u se h is c o u n se l ad v ise d h im t o pl ead gui l t yt o fi r s tdegr ee mur der . A m agi s tr at e j udge or der ed a s how caus e hea r i ng t o be hel d on B uda’ s pet i t i on i n O ct ober2003, butcanc el ed the hea r i ng upon a mot i on by th e D is tr ic t A tto rn e y . I n M a r c h 2 0 0 4 , t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e f i l e d a Re p o r ta n d Re c o mme n d a t i o n ( R&R) ad v isi n g that B u d a’s p eti ti o n b e d en ied. A cc o rdin g to the M ag istrate Ju d g e, B u d a’s es s ent i al ar gum entforan evi dent i aryhear i ng w as thatB uda “r ece i ved bad a dvi ce f r om t r i al couns el aboutpos s i bl e def ens es , the l i kel i hood of the dea t h penal t yand the degr ee of m ur dert hatw as appr opr i at e undert he fa ct s and l aw [, ] and thatthi s bad advi ce c aus ed h im to p lea d g u iltyto m u rd e r in th e f irst d e g re e ra th e r th a n g o to trial.” T h e re sp o n d e n ts ar gued thatB uda fa i l ed t o devel op t he fa ctual bas i s forthi s cl ai m i n s t at e courtas r equi r ed by28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 2) . T he M agi s t r at e J udge agr eed, concl udi ng that B u d a ’ s “ b a r e ” r e q u e s tf o ra h e a r i n g d i d n o ta m o u n tt o th e d i l i g e n c e r e q u i r e d b y § 2254( e) ( 2) as i nt erpr et ed byt he Supr eme C our ti n W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 529 U . S. 420, 437 (20 0 0 ). O n M arc h 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted th e R & R an d d en ied B u d a’s pet i t i on forhabea s corpus . T hi s C our tgr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yt o B uda onThe District Court exercise d jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; we havejurisdiction 1 under 28 U .S.C. § 2253. 6 N ovember24, 2004 on w hethert he D i s t r i ctC ourterr ed bydeny i ng B uda’ s pet i t i on on t he m e rits “ w ith o u t co n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n [ h is] c laim th a t h is g u iltyp lea is in v a lid b a se d o n th e in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

trial c o u n se l in a d v isin g h im to p lea d g u ilty to f ir s t- d e g re e m u rd e r.” 1 II. A s t at e pr i s onerw ho i n a fe der al habea s pet i t i on r eques t s an evi dent i aryhear i ng on cl ai m s he w as unabl e t o devel op i n s t at e courtm us ts ur m ountthe s t atut orybarr i erer ect ed in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 5 ). Wi l l i a ms , 529 U . S. at424. T hatpr ovi s i on, as amended byt he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ctof 1996 ( A E D PA ) , pr ovi des that “[ i] f th e [ p eti ti o n er] h as f ail ed to d ev elop the f

ac tual b asis o f a claim in S tat e c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s, th e c o u rt sh a ll n o t h o ld a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n th e c laim ,” u n les s c e rta in con dit i on s ar e m et . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(e) (2) . B ud a do es not cl ai m t o h ave m ettho se condi t i ons , and ther efor e w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherhe “f ai l ed t o devel op the fa ctual b a s is ” o f h is c la im in h is s ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . Id . W e conduc ta tw o- par ti nqui r yt o det erm i ne w hetherB uda fa i l ed t o devel op the fac tual bas i s of hi s cl ai m . “W e as k fi r s tw hetherthe fa ctual bas i s w as i ndeed de vel oped i n s t at e court , a ques t i on s us cept i bl e, i n t he norm al cour s e, of a s i m pl e y es orno ans w er . ” C r is t i n v. B r ennan , 281 F. 3d 404, 415 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 3 1 ). H er e, t he part i es agr ee thatt he ans w eri s no. N ext , w e cons i derw hetherthe r ecor d w asThe pa rties dispute the appropriate standa rd of review f

or district court de terminations 2 reg ardinga petitioner’ s diligenc e in see king a n evidentiar

y hearing in statecourt. B uda notes that in Marshall v. Hendrick s , 307 F.3d 36 ( 3d Cir. 2002), we e x erc ised plenar y review over

a district court’s de cision on whether to grant habe as cor

pus relief where the district cour

t did not hold an evidentiar

y hearing. Id . at5 0 . T h er e, h o we v er , th e p et i t i o n er ’s di l i gen ce i ns ee ki n g a state cour t hearing w as not at issue as a hearing in statecourt had been he ld, and the district cour t relied on that hearing instead of holdingits own. Id. Respondents counter that we should follow the Eleventh Circuit, which has “squa rely held that a de termination reg ardinga par ty ’s diligence is a findingof fact that will not be disturbed unless clea rly erroneous.” Hall v. Head, 310 F.3d 6 8 3 , 6 9 7 (1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Dre w v . D e p’ t of Cor r ., 297 F.3d 1278, 1283 ( 11th Cir. 2002)). We need not settle this dispute as we c onclude that the D istrict Court’s decision was error under bo th s tand ard s. 7 in a d e q u a telyd e v e lo p e d b e c a u se o f a “ lac k o f

d ili g e n c e , o r so m e g re a ter f a u lt, a ttribu tab le t o t he pr i s onerort he pr i s oner ’ s couns el . ” Id . ( quot i ng Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 3 2 ). D i l i gence r equi r es a pr i s onert o m ake a “r eas onabl e att empt , i n l i ghtof the i nform at i on avai l abl e att he t i m e, t o i nves t i gat e and pur s ue cl ai m s i n s t at e court. . . . ” Wi l l i a ms , 529 U . S . at 45 1 . T yp icall y , this m ea n s tha t th e p ri so n er m u st atleast req u est an ev iden ti ary h e a ri n g in s ta te c o u rt a s re q u ir e d b ys ta te la w . Id . at435. R es pondent s do notar gue thatB uda fa i l ed t o s eek a n evi dent i aryhear i ng i n t he m a n n e r p re sc rib e d b ysta te la w , y e t cla im th a t h e n e v e rth e les s d id n o t m a k e a re a so n a b le at t empt t o i nves t i gat e and pur s ue hi s cl ai m s i n s t at e court . W e ca nnots quar e thi s pos i t i on w i t h Wi l l i a ms ’ s expr es s i ns t ruct i on ori t s exampl e. 2 T he Wi l l i a ms C our tdecl ar ed that“[d] i l i gence w i l l r equi r e i n t he us ual cas e thatt he pr i s oner , ata mi ni m um , s eek a n evi dent i aryhear i ng i n s t at e courti n t he manner p re sc rib e d b ysta te la w .” 5 2 9 U .S . at 4 3 7 . A s re sp o n d e n ts d o n o t d isp u te th a t B u d a d id s o, i ti s di ffi cul tt o avoi d t he conc l us i on thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tr ai s ed a ba r r i erforB uda8

hi ghert han thates t abl i s hed i n Wi l l i a ms . T hi s becomes doubl yappar enti n l i ghtof Wi l l i a ms ’ contr as t i ng fac t s . T her e, t he pet i t i onercl ai m ed i n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on t hatt he pr os ecut i on had fa i l ed t o di s cl os e a pr e- t r i al ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on of the pet i t i onert hatconcl uded thatt he pet i t i onerw as i nt oxi cat ed w hi l e comm i t t i ng hi s al l eged m u rd e rs . Id . at 42 7 . T h e S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at be ca u se th e re p o rtw as p rep are d b ef o re t r i al and r epea t edl yw as m ent i oned i n t he tr ans cr i ptof the pet i t i oner ’ s s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng, t he pet i t i onerl acke d anyexcus e fornotar gui ng i n hi s s t at e pos t - convi ct i on p ro c e e d in g s th a t n o n -d is c lo s u re v io la te d h is ri g h ts . Id . at439. C onver s el y , her e, B uda expr es s l yr ai s ed t o t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar gum entand r eques t ed a he ar i ng. H e al s o w r ot e t o hi s s ent enci ng j udge and r eques t ed a tra n sc rip t o f

h is g u iltyp lea h e a rin g a n d o u tli n e d th e re a so n s s u p p o rtin g h is th e o ryth a t h is couns el had ac t ed i neff ect i vel y . T he C our tgotthe mess age: I texpr es s l yacknow l edged hi s r eques tfora hea r i ng, r ej ect ed hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m on t he mer i t s , and s t at ed that “n o p u rpo se w o u ld b e se rve d b yan yfu rth er p roc ee d ing s. ” T h e S u p erior C o u rt adopt ed thi s r eas oni ng. W h a t m o re c o u ld B u d a re a so n a b lyh a v e d o n e ? “ F o r sta te c o u rts to h a v e th e ir rig h tf u l o p p o rtu n ityto a d

ju d ica te f

e d e ra l rig h ts, th e p riso n e r m u st b e d ili g e n t in devel opi ng t he r ecor d and pr es ent i ng, i f pos s i bl e, al l cl ai m s of cons t i tut i onal err or . ” Wi l l i a ms , 529 U . S. at437. W e conc l ude thatthe Penns y l vani a court s had thei r“r i ght ful oppor tuni t y ” t o adj udi cat e B uda’ s fede r al r i ght s as evi dence d bythei rs quar e r ej ect i on of9

hi s cl ai m s of cons t i tut i onal err orunderthe Si xth A m endment , and thei rr efus al t o hol d an evident i aryheari ng . Iti s therefore no faultof B ud a’s that the fa ct s of his i neff ect i ven ess of couns el cl ai m ar e undeve l oped. O f c o u rse, a p eti ti o n er w h o d il igen tl yb u t un su cc essf u ll ysee k s an ev iden ti ary h e a r i n g i n s t a t e c o u r ti s n o tt h e r e b y ent i t l ed to an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g in f ed era l cou rt u n d e r A E D P A . C am

pbel lv. V

aughn , 2 0 9 F .3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W h e th e r to h o ld a hea r i ng r emai ns i n t he di s cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcour t , and depe nds on w hetherthe hear i ng w oul d “have t he pot ent i al t o advanc e the pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m . ” Id . W her e a p e tit io n e r f

a ils to f o re c a st to th e d istric t co u rt e v id e n c e o u tsid e th e re c o rd th a t w o u ld h e lp h is cau se o r “o therw ise t o ex p lai n h o w h is cl aim w o u ld b e a d v an ce d b yan ev iden ti ary h e a ri n g ,” a c o u rt is w ith in its d is c re tio n to d e n yth e c la im . Id . B uda cl ear l yexpl ai ned t o t he di s t r i ctcour thow hi s cl ai m w oul d be adva nced byan e v id e n tiary he a rin g . In h is p ro se M e m o ra n d u m o f F a c t an d L a w to th e D istric t C o u rt, B uda des cr i bed i n or gani zed f as hi on the fa ct s of hi s cas e, i t s pr ocedur al hi s t ory , and the natur e of hi s cl ai m s . H e expl ai ned thati n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas he had r eques t ed an evi dent i aryhear i ng t o es t abl i s h:

( i ) T haton A pr i l 10, 1997, Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce t ook a sig n ed co n fe ssion /st atem en t from P eti ti o n er; ( i i ) T hatbot h confe s s i ons / s t at ement s pr ovi de evi dence e x o n e ra tin g P e tit io n e r o f m a lice , an d /o r im p u ted m a lice in the s u b ject m u rde r; ( i i i ) T hatcouns el w as pr ovi ded w i t h t he s ai d confe s s i ons e v i d e n c e i n p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y; (iv ) T h a t trial c o u n se l re c o g n ize d P e tit io n e r’s in n o c e n c e in10 r el at i on t o t he murde r , vi a s ai d evi dence ; ( v) T hatt he governm entfai l ed t o pr ovi de val i d aggr avat ed f a c to rs f o r s e e k in g th e d e a th p e n a lty . . . . A pp. at300- 01. B ydeny i ng hi m t he oppor tuni t yt o puton t hi s evi dence , B uda ar gued, he w a s p re v e n te d f

ro m p ro v in g th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l p ro v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . As wi t h t h e q u e s t i o n wh e t h e rBu d a d i l i g e n t l ys o u g h ta h e a r i n g i n s t a t e c o u r t , we ar e puzz l ed as t o w hatm or e the D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d have a s ked fr om B uda. H e w as ca ll ed u p o n u n d er Wi l l i a ms t o for eca s torexpl ai n t he ut i l i t yof an e vi dent i aryhear i ng, and he di d s o. H ad he s ucce s s ful l ys how n t hattr i al couns el r ecogni zed the fa ct or s m i l i t at i ng agai ns tB uda’ s convi ct i on of fi r s tdegr ee mur der( i . e. , thatthe vi ct i m m ayhave be en dea d w hen B uda s hothi m , t hatB uda ac t ed underdur es s and w as i nt oxi cat ed atthe t i m e of the m u rde r) th at ce rt ainlyw o u ld h av e h elpe d ad v an ce B u d a’s c lai m that co u n sel’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t in a d v is in g B u d a to p le a d g u ilty to a v o id th e d e a th p e n a lty. S e e C a m p b e ll , 209 F. 3d at287. T he D i s t r i ctC our tunder s t ood t hi s . T he C our texpl ai ned B uda’ s t heoryi n “di s t i l l [ed] ” form : “that[he] r ece i ved bad a dvi ce f r om tr i al couns el aboutpos s i bl e def

ens es , t he l i kel i hood of the dea t h penal t yand the degr ee of m ur dert hat w as appr opr i at e undert he fa ct s and l aw and thatthi s bad advi ce c aus ed hi m t o pl ead g u il tyto m u rde r i n the f ir st de g ree rathe r th an g o to tr ial . ” In turn , the D istri ct C o u rt not ed, B uda r eques t ed t i m e fordi s coveryand ther eaf t eran evi dent i aryhear i ng. I n t he fac e of Buda’ s cry s t al l i ne for eca s tof w hatevi dence he hoped t o adduce atthe hea r i ng and hi s s harp enunci at i on of the hel p t hats how i ng w oul d be t o hi s cl ai m forr el i ef, i tw as11

an abus e of di s cr et i on fort he D i s t r i ctC our tnott o gr antB uda an e vi dent i aryhear i ng. III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand t hi s pet i t i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng.