Opinion ID: 2717105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Federal Proceedings—Order on Remand

Text: On remand the district court again granted Mosley’s petition. The court found that Strunck was not aware of what Taylor would have said, and so his failure to call her was not entitled to the presumption of reasonableness that applies to counsel’s strategic decisions. According to Strunck’s testimony, the court concluded, his trial strategy had focused entirely on No. 13-2515 9 Fernando’s testimony, which counsel assessed was unbelievable and insufficient to support the conviction. When the trial court rejected the motion for a judgment of acquittal, the court explained, Strunck scrambled to assemble a defense case, settling for Coward’s testimony placing Mosley outside the apartment building the entire night. The decision not to prepare a defense in the event the motion was rejected, the court concluded, was unreasonable. The court did not make any findings regarding Jones’s testimony. The court then turned to whether Mosley was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance and determined that based on all the evidence that the state judge did have, there was a reason- able probability that Taylor’s additional testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial. Again, the court disregarded Jones’s testimony. The court ordered Mosley released, unless the State announced an intent to retry him or filed a notice of appeal. Before doing either of those things, however, the State filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), asserting that the district court had assessed Mosley’s claim under the wrong standard—it had repeatedly ruled that the state court’s decision was unreasonable under § 2254(d), yet the proper inquiry was under § 2254(a). The court acknowledged its inappropriate citations and statements of the legal standard but assured the parties that it had assessed the claim under the proper standard. The court rejected the remainder of the State’s arguments to amend the judgment, pointing to its earlier decision and refusing to reanalyze the claims. The State then filed a notice of appeal, returning the case to us. 10 No. 13-2515