Opinion ID: 151087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chambers's Testimony

Text: Hall also contends that Smedley failed to interview or present witnesses to show that Chambers's testimony was false as to the retention period for BellSouth's telephone records of outgoing local calls. Had she done so, Hall argues, Chambers's testimony would not have undermined Hall's alibi. The state trial court, in denying the motion for new trial, concluded that Smedley's performance did not fall below the Strickland standard. Furthermore, the trial court concluded that there was no prejudice because Chambers's testimony at trial did not indicate that there were no calls, but [that] `we have no record of thoseany calls for those days,' and that the testimony of a juror indicated that the jury ignored the evidence of the phone records. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals then affirmed, Hall v. State of Alabama, No. CR-00-1180, 876 So.2d 540, 2002 WL 32598940 (Ala.Crim.App. Oct. 18, 2002) (unpublished), as did the Alabama Supreme Court. Ex parte Hall, 863 So.2d at 1081. The Alabama Supreme Court did not reach the performance prong but agreed with the trial court's ruling that the truth about the telephone records would not have affected the outcome of the trial: The telephone records, like the other evidence, merely presented a conflict the jury was required to resolve in assessing Hall's guilt. Ex parte Hall, 863 So.2d at 1083. Furthermore, the Alabama Supreme Court stated, We cannot say that Hall was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to discover Chambers's false testimony because we have already determined that truthful testimony as to the telephone records would not have altered the outcome of the trial. Id. at 1085. Hall has failed to show that the Alabama Supreme Court was unreasonable in its conclusion that Hall was not prejudiced by Chambers's false testimony. At trial, Smedley significantly undermined the credibility of Chambers's testimony during cross-examination by pointing out the oddity that BellSouth had no records of any outgoing local phone calls from any of the multiple homes in question for the entire day, despite the testimony of numerous witnesses to the contrary. [43] Moreover, one juror testified that Chambers's testimony was difficult to believe and was largely disregarded by the jury. Finally, even absent the testimony of Chambers, there was significant evidence in the record that Hall was guilty, including his own audiotaped confession and Leak's testimony. In summary, Hall has not carried his burden to show the Alabama Supreme Court's decisionthat Hall was not prejudiced by Smedley's failure to present evidence of the falsity of Chambers's testimonywas contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.