NOT 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. 08- 4201

_____________ C H R IS T O P H E R S W E E T , A ppel l ant

v. F RA NKL I N T E NNI S , S UP E RI NT E NDE NT ; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF P E N N S Y L V A N IA O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 07- cv- 5349) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d m u n d V . L u d w ig

___________ N o. 08- 4359

_____________ J E F F R E Y S W E E T , A ppel l ant

v. J OHN KE RE S T E S , S UP E RI NT E NDE NT ; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF T HE CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF P E N N S Y L V A N IA O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 07- cv- 5381)2 D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d m u n d V . L u d w ig

A r gued J une 3, 2010 B efore: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed J ul y12, 2010)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ T er i B . H i m ebaugh ( A r gued) 220 St al l i on L ane Schw enks vi l l e, PA 19473 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts J ohn W . G ol ds bor ough ( A r gued) T hom as W . D ol genos R o n ald E isen b erg Jo sep h M cG ett igan , III R. S e th W i l l i a ms 3 S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 C ou nse lf

orAppel l ee s C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. P eti ti o n ers C h ri stop h er S w ee t and Jef fre yS w ee t app ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g th e irp e titio n s f o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly s um m ar i ze the es s ent i al fac t s . I n t he ea r l ym orni ng hour s of M ar ch 23, 2001, s ever al3

i ndi vi dual s m as quer adi ng as pol i ce of fi cer s and ca rry i ng handguns r obbed an es t abl i s hm enti n t he C hi nat ow n ar ea of Phi l adel phi a thatw as purpor t edl ya hous e of pr os t i tut i on. A ctual Phi l adel phi a pol i ce of fi cer s , on al ertdue t o a s i m i l arr obberyof the s ame l ocat i on thatoccurr ed s ever al w eeks ear l i er , arr i ved w i thi n m i nut es . T hey appr ehende d s i x i ndi vi dual s , the tw o pet i t i oner s i n thi s cas e al ong w i th L ui s M el endez , M anuel M el endez , J os e M edi na, and D i xon R i ver a. T he pet i t i oner s w er e t aken t o the P h ilad e lp h ia P o lice C e n tra l D e tec tiv e s’ D iv isio n , w h e re th e yp ro v id e d w ritten sta tem e n ts c o n f e s s i n g t o th e i ri n v o l v e m e n ti n th e c r i m e . B o th p e t i t i o n e r s w e r e c h a r g e d w i th r o b b e r y, aggr avat ed as s aul t , cr i m i nal cons pi r acy , bur gl ary , and pos s es s i ng an i ns trum entof cr i m e, and C hr i s t opherw as al s o char ged w i th carry i ng a fi r earm w i thouta l i cens e. Pr i ort o t r i al , the pet i t i oner s m oved t o s uppr es s the s t at ement s theym ade t o the p o lice , co n ten d in g th a t th e sta tem e n ts w e re in v o lu n tar ya n d o b tain e d in v io latio n o f th e ir r i ght s underM i r anda v. A r i zona, 384 U . S. 436 ( 1966) . A ft era l engthyhear i ng, the tr i al courtdeni ed thei rm ot i ons , hol di ng thateac h pet i t i onerhad conf es s ed vol unt ar i l yand know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s M i r anda r i ght s . T he tr i al courtfound thatnei ther p e tit io n e r w a s s u f

f e rin g f ro m a n ym e d ica l co n d iti o n th a t w o u ld h a v e im p a ire d h is a b ili ty t o w ai ve hi s r i ght s orpr ovi de a vol unt arys t at ementt o pol i ce. T he tr i al courtal s o found thatC hr i s t opherw as gi ven an opportuni tyt o t ake hi s ant i - s ei zur e medi cat i on w hen he as ked fori tdur i ng ques t i oni ng. T he pet i t i oner s pr ocee ded t o tr i al and w er e convi ct ed on al l cou nts .4

A ft erthei rconvi ct i ons w er e af fi r m ed on di r ectappea l , the pet i t i oner s fi l ed pet i t i ons forr el i ef pur s uantt o t he Penns y l vani a Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 9541 ets eq. T hei rPC R A pet i t i ons r ai s ed s ever al i s s ues , i ncl udi ng the tw o i s s ues r ai s ed i n t he habe as pet i t i ons curr ent l ybefor e thi s court . T heyar gued that th e ir M ira n d a w a iv e rs a n d su b se q u e n t co n f e ss io n s w e re in v o lu n tar y , an d th a t ap p e llate couns el w as i neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o r ai s e and pr es erve thi s i s s ue. T heyal s o ar gued that tr i al couns el w as i neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr es entm edi cal evi dence and expe r tt es t i m ony to su p p o rt th e ir m o tio n s to su p p re ss a n d to c h a llen g e th e v o lu n tar in e ss o f th e ir confe s s i ons befor e the j ury . I n s uppor tof thi s cl ai m , theys ubm i t t ed a l ett err eportfr om D r . L aw s on B erns t ei n, M . D . , P. C . , a for ens i c neur ops y chi atr i s t . D r . B erns t ei n opi ned that the p eti ti o n ers w o u ld h av e lac k ed the c o g n it ive c ap ac ityto m ak e a k n o w ing an d v o lun tary w a iv e r o f

th e ir rig h ts. H is re p o rt a ss u m e d th a t b o th p e tit io n e rs h a d b e e n d e p riv e d th e ir ant i - s ei zur e medi cat i ons , and i tw as bas ed exc l us i vel yon the r ecor ds thathe had be en pr ovi ded; he di d notper s onal l yeval uat e the pet i t i oner s . T he PC R A courtr ej ect ed the p eti ti o n ers’ claim s, co n clud ing that their co n fe ssion s w ere v o lun tary . T h e P C R A co u rt al s o found thatm edi cal evi dence orexpertt es t i m onyr egar di ng the pet i t i oner s ’ m edi cal condi t i on w oul d nothave c hanged the out come of t he pr ocee di ngs and thatthe evi dence es t abl i s hi ng eac h pet i t i oner ’ s gui l tw as “overw hel m i ng. ” The Pennsy l vani a Super i or C our taff i r m ed the di s m i s s al of the pet i t i oner s ’ PC R A pet i t i ons , adopt i ng the r eas oni ng of the P C R A cou rti n all res pects .5

T h e p e titio n e rs f

ile d p e titio n s f

o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254 i n D i s tr i ctC our t . T hei rpet i t i ons w er e r efe rr ed t o a M agi s tr at e J udge, w ho i s s ued a R eportand R ecomm endat i on ( “R & R ”) r ecomm endi ng thatthe pet i t i ons be deni ed. O ver the pet i t i oner s ’ obj ect i ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the R & R and deni ed the pet i t i ons w i thouta hea r i ng. T he pet i t i oner s r eques t ed ce r t i fi cat es of appe al abi l i ty , and w e ce r t i fi ed tw o iss u e s f

o r a p p e a l. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. W hen a di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s es a § 2254 p eti ti o n “b ase d o n a re v iew o f th e state c o u rtrec o rd w ith o u t ho lding an ev iden ti ary hear i ng, ” w e appl ya pl enarys t andar d of r evi ew . Fahyv. H orn, 516 F. 3d 169, 179 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) curt ai l ed th e sc o p e o f

f e d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s re v iew o f sta te c o u rt d e c isio n s. F o r a n yc laim th a t is

“ a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits” in sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s, f e d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s re lief is pr ecl uded unl es s s uch adj udi cat i on ( 1) “r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as contr aryt o, or i nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , ” or( 2) “r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ” 28 U . S. C . §§ 2254( d) ( 1) and ( 2) ; s ee W ert s v. V aughn, 228 F. 3d6

178, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T he Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned thata “s t at e courtdeci s i on w i l l be ‘con traryt o’ our cl earl yest abli shed p recedent i f t he st at e cou rtei ther ‘ app l i es a ru le th a t co n tra d icts th e g o v e rn in g law se t f o rth in o u r c a se s,’ o r ‘c o n f ro n ts a se t o f

f a c ts thatar e mat er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om a dec i s i on of thi s C our tand neve r thel es s arr i ves ata r es ul tdi ffe r entfr om ourpr ece dent . ’ ” Penryv. J ohns on, 532 U . S. 782, 792 ( 2001) (q u o tin g W ill iam s v . T a y lo r, 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 -0 6 (2 0 0 0 )). “ A sta te c o u rt d e c isio n w ill b e a n ‘u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f ’ o u r c lea rlye sta b lish e d p re c e d e n t if it ‘c o rre c tly i dent i fi es the governi ng l egal rul e butappl i es i tunr eas onabl yt o the fa ct s of a pa r t i cul ar pr i s oner ' s cas e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng W i l l i ams, 529 U . S. at407- 08) . A E D PA al s o pr ovi des t hat “[f ] actual i s s ues det erm i ned bya s t at e courtar e pr es um ed t o be corr ectand the pet i t i oner bears the b urden o f rebutt i ng this presum pti on bycl ear and co nv i ncing ev i den ce. ” W ert s, 2 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 9 6 (c itin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 )) . III . T h e p e tit io n e rs r a ise tw o a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. F irst, th e yc o n ten d th a t th e ir m edi cal condi t i ons r ender ed thei rconfe s s i ons i nvol unt ary , and thus i nadmi s s i bl e under M i r anda a nd the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . Second, theyar gue that tr ial co u n sel p rov ided co n sti tuti o n all yd ef ec ti v e a ssist an ce b yfa il ing to p rese n t exp ert test im o n yreg ard ing their m ed ical co n d it ion s. T h e p arti es a g ree that thes e c lai m s w ere e xh a us t e d a nd a dj ud i c a t e d o n the i rmer i t s i n s t a t e c ou r t , s o the de fe r e nt i a l A ED PA st and ard of revi ew app l i es t o b oth cl ai m s.7 A. T he pet i t i oner s fi r s tar gue thatthei rconfe s s i ons w er e i nvol unt ary , chal l engi ng th e ira d m is s io n u n d e r b o th M ir a n d a a n d th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . U n d e r M ir a n d a , a cr i m i nal defe ndantm ayonl yw ai ve hi s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtt o have a n att orneypr es ent dur i ng cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on i f “the w ai veri s m ade vol unt ar i l y , know i ngl yand i ntel l i gen t l y . ” 38 4 U . S . at44 4. A vali d M i randa w ai ver has tw o d i st i nct di m ensi on s: F i rs t , the rel i nq uis hm ent of the ri gh tm usthav e been vo l un t aryi n the sense thati tw as the pr oductof a f r ee a nd del i ber at e choi ce r atherthan i nt i m i dat i on, coer ci on, ordece pt i on. Second, the w ai verm us thave be en m ade w i th a ful l aw ar enes s of both the natur e of the r i ghtbei ng abandone d and the cons equenc es of the dec i s i on t o abandon i t . O nl yi f the ‘ t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the i nt err ogat i on’ r evea l both an uncoe r ced c h o ice a n d th e re q u isite le v e l o f c o m p re h e n sio n m a ya c o u rt p ro p e rly concl ude thatthe M i r anda r i ght s have be en w ai ved. M or an v. B urbi ne, 475 U . S. 412, 421 ( 1986) ( quot i ng Far e v. M i chae l C . , 442 U . S. 707, 725 ( 1979) ) . “The ul t i m at e ques t i on i n the vol unt ar i nes s cal cul us i s ‘ w hether , undert he t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , the cha l l enged c onfes s i on w as obt ai ned i n a manner compat i bl e w i th t he r equi r ement s of the C ons t i tut i on. ’ ” Fahy , 516 F. 3d at194 ( quot i ng M i l l erv. Fent on, 474 U . S. 104, 112 ( 1985) ) . Feder al habea s court s have a n “i ndepende nt o b lig a tio n ” to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a c o n f e s s io n w a s v o lu n ta ry. M ille r, 4 7 4 U .S . a t 1 1 0 . A l tho ug h thi s C ou rtdefe rs t o st at e cou rtfact -fi nd i ng on “subsi diaryfactual quest i on s” under28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 1) , the “ul t i m at e ques t i on w hether , underthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , the cha l l enged c onfes s i on w as obt ai ned i n a mannercompat i bl e w i th t he r equi r ement s of the C ons t i tut i on i s a mat t erfori ndepende ntfede r al det erm i nat i on. ”8

M i l l er , 474 U . S. at112. I n thi s cas e, the tr i al court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs on the r el evants ubs i di aryi s s ues l eave l i t t l e r oom forthe pet i t i oner s ’ ar gum entthattheydi d notvol unt ar i l yw ai ve thei rM i r anda ri g h ts. F o r C h ri stop h er’s co n fe ssion , the tri al co u rtcre d it ed D etec ti v e K erw in’s t es t i m onythathe s t opped the i nt err ogat i on s o thatC hr i s t ophercoul d t ake hi s m edi cat i on and r ej ect ed C hr i s t opher ’ s t es t i m onyt o the contr ary . T he tr i al courtcr edi t ed D et ect i ve K e rw in ’s te stim o n yth a t C h risto p h e r “ d id n o t ap p e a r g ro g g yo r h is d e m e a n o r d id n o t in anyw ayi ndi cat e thathe w as s uffe r i ng fr om . . . anyphy s i cal orm ent al di s abi l i tythat w oul d aff

ecthi s abi l i tyt o under s t and w hatw as s ai d t o hi m and t o r es pond t o w hatw as s ai d t o hi m ort o m ake a deci s i on as t o w hetherornothe w i s hed t o m ake a s t at ement . ” Suppl ement al A ppendi x ( “S. A . ”) 397. T he tr i al courtfound thatC hr i s t opher ’ s s t at ement di d not“i ndi cat e s om eone w ho w as ei therunabl e t o s peak ort o s peak i n a l ogi cal and c o h e re n t f

a s h io n .” Id . N o tin g th a t th e s ta te m e n t w a s ta k e n in th e “ e a rl ym o rn in g h o u rs . .

. s hor t l yaft erthe def

endanti ndi cat ed he w oul d have e xpect ed t o t ake hi s m edi cat i on, ” the tr i al courtconcl uded thatthe evi dence di d notes t abl i s h thatC hr i s t opherw as “s uffe r i ng fr om the ef

fec t s of nothavi ng had hi s m edi cat i on. ” S. A . 397- 98. ForJ eff r ey ’ s confe s s i on, the tr i al courts i m i l ar l yfound thatJ eff eryw as not su f f e rin g f ro m a n ye f

f e c ts o f h is e p ilep syo r a n x ietyw h e n h e m a d e h is s tate m e n t to p o l i c e . T h e tr i a l c o u r tf o u n d th a tJ e f

f r e y o n l y s u f

f e r e d h i s s e i z u r e m u c h l a t e ri n th e d a y, aft erthe s t at ementw as compl et e. S. A . 399. A l though J eff r eyw as notgi ven any9

m edi cat i on, he w as gi ven food t o eat , and hi s s t at ementdoes not“gi ve r i s e t o any i nfer ence ” thathe w as unabl e “t o s peak c oher ent l y. . . orl ogi cal l yi n r es pons e t o the q u esti o n s tha t w ere ask ed . ” S . A . 3 9 9 -40 0 . T h e tri al co u rtcre d it ed D etec ti v e K erw in’s t es t i m onythathe “appear ed t o under s t and and be abl e t o s peak a nd t o r es pond t o the ques t i ons and [that ] he s eemed fi ne dur i ng the t i m e of a ns w er i ng the ques t i ons . . . . ” S. A . 400. T he tr i al courtther efor e det erm i ned thatnei therpet i t i onerw as s uffe r i ng fr om a n yd is a b lin g m e d ic a l c o n d itio n w h e n h e w a iv e d h is M ir a n d a ri g h ts . T o reb u t th ese fin d ing s, the p eti ti o n ers su b m itted a tw o -pa g e re p o rtfro m D r. B erns t ei n. I n t hi s r eport , D r . B erns t ei n opi nes thatthe pet i t i oner s “[l ] acke d the cogni t i ve c a p a c ityto m a k e a k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar yw a iv e r o f th e ir rig h ts.” Jo in t A p p e n d ix (“ J.A .”) 5 6 . A t lea st a s it p e rta in s to C h risto p h e r, h o w e v e r, D r. B e rn ste in ’s c o n c lu sio n is pr emi s ed on fa ctual as s um pt i ons thatthe tr i al courtfound t o be i nacc ur at e. T he l ett er pr es um es thatboth pet i t i oner s “w er e depr i ved of thei rant i s ei zur e medi cat i ons dur i ng t he p e rio d o f th e ir in ter ro g a tio n ,” id ., b u t th e trial c o u rt f o u n d th a t C h risto p h e r w a s g iv e n h is m e d ica tio n w h e n h e re q u e ste d it. D r. B e rn ste in ’s r e p o rt is le ss o b v io u slyf law e d w ith resp ec t t o Jef

fre y ’s ca se, bu t w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the tw o -pa g e re p o rt fal l s s hor tof the “c l earand convi nci ng” s t andar d r equi r ed t o r ebutthe tr i al court ’ s fac tual f in d in g th a t J e f

f re yw a s n o t s u f

f e ri n g f ro m a n ys u c h c o n d itio n . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1 ). A s expl ai ned i n t he R & R , “D r . B erns t ei n’ s opi ni on, bas ed as i ti s on the s ame r ecor ds t he j urys aw , does notr ai s e the quantum of pr oof t o the cl earand convi nci ng pl at eau10

necessaryt o rebut the tr i al cou rt ’s fi nd i ng that J effreyw as not s uff eri ng from epil epsy s ym pt om s w hen he w ai ved hi s M i r anda r i ght s and gave hi s s t at ement . ” J . A . 19 n. 10. T h e p e tit io n e rs a lso a rg u e th a t th e ir c o n f e ss io n s w e re o b tain e d in v io latio n o f th e ir due pr oces s r i ght s . T he Supr eme C our thas “l ong hel d thatcert ai n i nt err ogat i on t echni ques , ei theri n i s ol at i on oras appl i ed t o the uni que cha r act er i s t i cs of a pa r t i cul ar s us pect , ar e s o offe ns i ve t o a ci vi l i zed s y s t em of j us t i ce thattheym us tbe conde m ned u n d e r t h e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e o f th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t.” M ille r, 4 7 4 U .S . a t 1 0 9 . “I ti s cl earthat‘ onl yvol unt aryconfe s s i ons m aybe admi t t ed atthe tr i al of gui l tor i nnocenc e’ . . . . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sw i nt , 15 F. 3d 286, 288- 89 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng L ego v. T w om ey , 404 U . S. 477, 478 ( 1972) ) . “[C]ourt s l ook t o the t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s t o det erm i ne w hethera conf es s i on w as vol unt ary . T hos e pot ent i al ci r cumst ance s i ncl ude notonl ythe cruci al el ementof pol i ce c oer ci on; the l ength of the i nt err ogat i on; i t s l ocat i on; i t s cont i nui ty ; the def endant ’ s m atur i ty ; educa t i on; phy s i cal condi t i on; and ment al heal th. ” W i thr ow v. W i l s on, 507 U . S. 680, 693 ( 1993) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). T h e p eti ti o n ers a rgu e tha t th eir co n fe ssion s w ere inv o lun taryb ec au se th eyw ere obt ai ned w hi l e theyw er e s uffe r i ng fr om m ent al pr obl ems r el at ed t o epi l eps y . A l though a defe nd ant’ s m ental con dit i on m ayserve as a “si gn i fi cant fact or i n the ‘ vo l un t ari ness’ c a lcu lu s,” th e d e f

e n d a n t’s m e n tal c o n d iti o n , “b yitse lf a n d a p a rt f

ro m its re latio n to offi ci al coer ci on, s houl d [neve r ] di s pos e of the i nqui ryi nt o cons t i tut i onal11

‘ vol unt ar i nes s . ’ ” C ol or ado v. C onnel l y , 479 U . S. 157, 164 ( 1986) . “[W ] hi l e ment al co n d it ion is surelyrelev an t t o an ind ividu al' s su sce p ti b il ityto p o li ce co erc ion , m ere exam i nati on of the con fessant ' s st at e of m i nd can n ever con cl ud e t he d ue p rocess in q u iry .” Id . at 1 6 5 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s th e re f o re h e ld th a t “c o e rc iv e p o lice a c tiv ity i s a nec es s arypr edi cat e t o t he fi ndi ng thata conf es s i on i s not‘ vol unt ary ’ w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e o f th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t.” Id . a t 1 6 7 . I n thi s cas e, ther e i s no evi dence t o s ugges tthatthe det ect i ves w ho i nt err ogat ed the p e tit io n e rs r e so rte d to c o e rc iv e tac tics o r e x p lo ited th e p e tit io n e rs’ m e d ica l co n d iti o n in a n yw a y . A lth o u g h b o th p e tit io n e rs te stif ied th a t th e yw e re su f

f e rin g sy m p to m s re late d to thei repi l eps y , the tr i al courtcr edi t ed D et ect i ve K erw i n’ s t es t i m onythatnei therpet i t i oner a p p e a re d to b e su f

f e rin g f ro m a n ym e d ica l co n d iti o n , an d th a t b o th p e tit io n e rs a p p e a re d to compre hend eve r ythi ng thatw as occurr i ng. S. A . 397, 400. T he tr i al courtal s o cr edi t ed D et ect i ve K erw i n’s t est i m on ythat C hri st op her w as perm i t t ed to t ake h i s epi l epsy m edi cat i on upon r eques t . S. A . 392. I n J eff r ey ’ s cas e, nothi ng i n the r ecor d s ugges t s t hat the det ect i ves w ho i nt err ogat ed the pet i t i oner s w er e aw ar e of hi s condi t i on, m uch l es s t hat theys om ehow t ook advant age of hi s s i tuat i on i n thei ri nt err ogat i on. T he pet i t i oner s r el yon t w o cas es i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our thel d thatm ent al i l l nes s , combi ned w i th otherfac t or s , can r endera conf es s i on i nvol unt aryeven i n the a b se n c e o f

p h y sic a l co e rc io n b yth e p o lice . B lac k b u rn v . A lab a m a , 3 6 1 U .S . 1 9 9 (1 9 6 0 ); Fi kes v. A l abama, 352 U . S. 191 ( 1957) . N ei thercas e es t abl i s hes , how ever , thatthe12

pet i t i oner s ’ confe s s i ons w er e i nvol unt aryi n thi s cas e. I n B l ackburn, the C our tconcl uded thatthe def

endantw as “i ns ane a nd i ncompet entatthe t i m e he a l l egedl yconfe s s ed” a nd hi ghl i ght ed the coe r ci ve cha r act er i s t i cs of the conf es s i on: “the ei ght - t o ni ne- hour s us t ai ned i nt err ogat i on i n a t i nyr oom w hi ch w as upon occa s i on l i t er al l yfi l l ed w i th pol i ce offi cer s ; the abs ence of B l ackburn’ s fr i ends , r el at i ves , orl egal couns el ; [and] the c ompos i t i on of

the c on fe s s i on bythe D e pu tyShe r i ff r a the rtha n b yBl a c kb urn. ” 36 1 U. S. at207- 08. Si m i l ar l y , i n Fi kes , the C our temphasi zed s ever al i m por t antfac t or s bey ond t he defe ndant ’ s m ent al condi t i on: the i nt err ogat i on t ook pl ace forhour s ata t i m e overthe cour s e of f

i ve day s ; he w as t aken t o a s t at e pr i s on and hel d i n an i s ol at i on uni t ; he w as deni ed ac ces s t o a l aw y erand hi s father , w ho att empt ed t o s ee hi m ; and he w as det ai ned w i thoutr ece i vi ng the pr el i m i naryhear i ng r equi r ed bys t at e l aw . 352 U . S. at196- 97. T hes e el ement s of pol i ce c oer ci on ar e notpr es enther e. T he ent i r e ques t i oni ng pr oces s forboth pet i t i oner s t ook onl ya fe w hour s , and the r ecor d i ndi cat es thateac h pet i t i onerw as w i l l i ng t o vol unt eeri nform at i on fr om the out s et . I n fac t , C hr i s t opher vol unt eer ed hi s i nvol vementbefor e the det ect i ves began i nt err ogat i ng hi m , and J eff r ey agr eed t o pr ovi de a s t at ementi m m edi at el yaft ers peaki ng w i th C hr i s t opher . T he pet i t i oner s w er e ques t i oned i n a s t andar d i nt ervi ew r oom , w i th onl ytw o det ect i ves pr es ent . T her e i s no evi dence thattheyw er e unr eas onabl yi s ol at ed, orthatatt empt s at cont actbythei rl aw y er s orfami l ym ember s w er e thw art ed. T he s t at ement s w er e r ecor ded in D e tec tiv e K e rw in ’s h a n d w riting , b u t th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e f a c tu a l d e tails13

i ncl uded i n the conf

es s i on w er e s uppl i ed bythe pol i ce. I n s hor t , ther e i s s i m pl yno evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e anydegr ee of coer ci on bey ond the mostbas i c pol i ce i nt err ogat i on t echni ques . A ccor di ng the s t at e court s ’ fac tual fi ndi ngs the pr operamount of d eference, w e cann ot concl ud e t hat the tr i al cou rt ’s decis i on adm i t t i ng the p et i t i on ers ’ c o n f e ss io n s w a s c o n tra ryto , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f , cle a rly e s t a b l i s h e d f

e d e r a l l a w. B. T h e p e tit io n e rs a lso a rg u e th a t th e ir trial c o u n se l p ro v id e d c o n stitu tio n a lly defe ct i ve as s i s t ance of couns el byfai l i ng t o pr es entm edi cal t es t i m onyr egar di ng the eff ectthatthei repi l ept i c condi t i ons m ayhave ha d on thei rabi l i tyt o w ai ve thei rM i r anda w ai ver s and pr ovi de s t at ement s t o t he pol i ce vol unt ar i l y . T o s ucce ed on thi s cl ai m , the pet i t i oner s “musts how thatthe s t at e court ’ s deci s i on i s ei thercontr aryt o, ori nvol ves an un r e a s on a bl e a pp l i c a t i on of , the s t a nd a r d s e tfo r th i n Str i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ng t on , 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ).” F a h y , 5 1 6 F .3 d a t 1 9 7 -9 8 . T h e S trick lan d tes t h a s tw o c o m p o n e n ts: “ F irst, the def endantm us ts how thatcouns el ’ s per form ance fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of re a so n a b len e ss , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 8 , an d se c o n d , the d e f e n d a n t m u st s h o w h e w a s a c tu a lly pr ej udi ced bycouns el ’ s defi ci entper form ance . I d. at687. ” W ert s , 228 F. 3d at203. O ur r evi ew of tr i al couns el ’ s eff ect i venes s i s “hi ghl ydefe r ent i al and ther e i s a s tr ong pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ' s conductfal l s w i thi n the r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal i s m . ” J ohns on v. T enni s , 549 F. 3d 296, 298 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng St r i ckl and, 466 U . S. at14

6 8 9 ). “[ C ]o u n se l is stro n g lyp re su m e d to h a v e re n d e re d a d e q u a te a ss ista n c e a n d m a d e a ll s i gni fi cantdeci s i ons i n t he exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent . ” Str i ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at69 0. T o est abli sh actual pr ej ud i ce, a “def end ant m ustshow that there i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . A r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyi s a pr obabi l i tys uffi ci ent t o underm i ne conf

i dence i n t he out come. ” I d. at694. T h e P C R A c o u rt re

jec ted th e p e tit io n e rs’ in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim s b e c a u se it det erm i ned thatthe pet i t i oner s w er e notpr ej udi ced bythe fa i l ur e t o el i ci tm edi cal t es t i m ony . T he courtconcl uded thatthe pet i t i oner s ’ “as s ert i on thatexpertt es t i m onyor o th e r m e d ic a l e v id e n c e w o u ld h a v e c h a n g e d th e o u tc o m e is b a s e le s s .” S .A . 1 5 7 1 , 1 6 3 5 . I tfur therconcl uded thats uch evi dence coul d nothave c hanged the out come attr i al b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h in g e a c h th e p e titio n e rs ’ g u ilt w a s “ o v e rw h e lm in g .” Id . ForJ eff r ey ’ s convi ct i on, the PC R A courthi ghl i ght ed the t es t i m onyof O ffi cerB r adyand Ser geantW i l s on thatJ eff r eyy el l ed “oh s hi t ” and di s car ded hi s m as k upon s eei ng the pol i ce of fi cer s . S. A . 1636. ForC hr i s t opher ’ s convi ct i on, the PC R A courtemphasi zed S ergeant J ackson ’s t est i m on ythat he ob served C hri st op her holdi ng an A si an w om an as a sh iel d b ef

o re sh o v ing the w o m an an d flee ing o u t of the b u il d ing . S . A . 1 5 7 2 . T h e c o u rt al s o poi nt ed outthatC hr i s t opherw as appr ehende d w i th a hand gun, l at ex gl oves , s ever al coat s , and $663 i n cas h. I d. I n both cas es , the PC R A courtconcl uded that“[a ] ddi t i onal evi dence conce r ni ng the vol unt ar i nes s of the def endant ’ s s t at ementw oul d nothave15

change d the out come. ” S. A . 1572, 1636. T he PC R A ’ s courtappl i cat i on of the Str i ckl and pr ej udi ce s t andar d w as not unr eas onabl e. T he governm enti ntr oduced s i gni fi cantevi dence es t abl i s hi ng the p eti ti o n ers’ inv o lvem en t i n the c ri m es a n d co rrob o rati n g their co n fe ssion s. M o rev er, thei ratt orney s w er e abl e t o r ai s e the i s s ue of thei rm edi cal condi t i on atboth the su p p re ss io n h e a rin g a n d trial. U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e P C R A c o u rt re a so n a b ly d e ter m in e d th a t th is a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e w o u ld n o t h a v e c h a n g e d th e o u tco m e a t trial. Th e p e t i t i o n e r s a l s o a r g u e th a tme d i c a l t e s t i mo n yma yh a v e c h a n g e d th e o u t c o me of the s uppr es s i on hear i ng. O n t hi s poi nt , the pet i t i oner s ar gue thatm edi cal t es t i m ony w as es s ent i al t o pr ove thatthei rs t at ement s w er e notvol unt ary . A l though m edi cal t es t i m onym aycert ai nl ys uppor ts uch a pos i t i on, w e have r ej ect ed the cont ent i on thatt r i al couns el i s aut om at i cal l yi neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr es ents uch evi dence . R ei nertv. L arki ns , 379 F. 3d 76, 95 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , “tr i al couns el need not i ntr oduce e xpertt es t i m onyon hi s cl i ent ' s behal f i f he i s abl e ef fec t i vel yt o cr os s - exami ne pr os ecut i on w i tnes s es and el i ci thel pful t es t i m ony . ” I d. ( ci t i ng C om m onw eal th v. W i l l i am s, 64 0 A . 2d 12 51 , 12 65 (Pa. 19 94 )) . In this case, tri al cou nsel w as abl e t o rai se thi s i s s ue thr ough the pet i t i oner s ’ ow n t es t i m onyand J eff r ey ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds . E ven th o u g h e x p e rt tes tim o n ym a yh a v e g iv e n th e p e tit io n e rs a stro n g e r a rg u m e n t th a t th e ir c o n f e ss io n s w e re in v o lu n tar y , the P C R A c o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t su c h tes tim o n yw o u ld nothave c hanged the ana l y s i s of the vol unt ar i nes s i s s ue w as notunr eas onabl e.16 I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.