Opinion ID: 612350
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Introduce “Exculpatory” Evidence

Text: The state court found that defense counsel’s failure to explore matters that were raised at the preliminary examination was a matter of trial strategy, and that petitioner did not overcome the strong presumption that counsel exercised sound strategy. The state court also concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for the failure to elicit the evidence the result would have been different. At the preliminary examination, No. 09-1294 24 the prosecutor stipulated that, in addition to bags of cocaine, the brown tote bag also contained important papers belonging to Broome, including tax documents, a social security statement, and documents from HUD and H&R Block. There was also a stipulation that the spiral notebook found in the nightstand had writing in it that appeared to be from three different people—possibly, a man, a woman, and a child. There is no reason to think that defense counsel was unaware of this evidence. Moreover, evidence tying Broome to the tote bag containing the cocaine would not negate the finding of constructive possession by petitioner; particularly as the jury was also instructed on joint possession. As for the spiral notebook, the record does not indicate whether the drug tally sheet within the notebook was written in more than one hand. Evidence that a child or woman had also written in the notebook would not have been “exculpatory.” Also, calling attention to differences in handwriting would have placed more focus on evidence that was consistent with ongoing drug trafficking. We find that it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that defense counsel’s failure to elicit or introduce this evidence was a reasonable strategic decision that did not result in prejudice to petitioner.