Opinion ID: 203416
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Totality of the Evidence

Text: After reviewing the totality of the evidence before the jury, we conclude that the potential impeachment value of Gomsey's testimony would not have significantly undermined K.M.'s credibility. Although we have noted that a significant factor weighing in favor of finding prejudice is the absence of any corroborating evidence other than the testimony of the witness whom defense counsel failed to impeach, Stephens, 294 F.3d at 225 (citing Gonzalez-Soberal, 244 F.3d at 278), here, defense counsel did not fail to impeach K.M. And the jury was repeatedly presented with K.M.'s inconsistent statements, inconsistencies that the prosecution acknowledged. The jury nevertheless found K.M. credible regarding the allegations of sexual abuse. Moreover, calling Gomsey to testify would have come with a price. Gomsey's report states that she knew K.M. through working at K.M.'s middle school and that she kn[e]w [K.M.] to be a good person and to my knowledge had always been truthful with me. As the state court noted, given that Officer Gomsey's potential testimony would have been cumulative of testimony already in evidence, Malone may well have benefitted from her absence. See Malone, 2002 WL 31890964, at . That is, as the trial judge told Malone's counsel, and the state appellate court quoted approvingly, Malone obtained from the complaining witness the inconsistencies that were described to the officer, without permitting the officer to testify as to everything else that was told[.] See id. Therefore, we conclude that the state court's decision that Malone was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to call Gomsey was not an unreasonable application of Strickland. While unreasonableness may, at times, be difficult to define, McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24, 36 (1st Cir. 2002) (en banc), we have no difficulty in concluding in this case that the state court did not commit AEDPA error. We cannot say that the state court's decision was unreasonable in the independent and objective judgment of this court. In fact, we agree with the state court. Gomsey's failure to testify does not undermine our confidence in the outcome of Malone's trial.