Opinion ID: 151087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Present Additional Alibi Evidence

Text: Hall also contends that he was denied effective trial counsel because Smedley (1) failed to call Pamela Armstrong, Gloria McElroy, and Sunkeissa Cantrell as alibi witnesses and (2) failed to present any other evidence in support of his alibi. In denying his motion for a new trial, the state trial court concluded that Hall's alibi defense was more tha[n] adequately represented through the testimony of the witnesses who did testify at trial, and [a]ny other evidence would have been cumulative. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with these findings. [I]t is well-settled in this Circuit that a petitioner cannot establish an ineffective assistance claim simply by pointing to additional evidence that could have been presented. Rhode, 582 F.3d at 1284 (quotation marks omitted). Counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence or evidence incompatible with the defense strategy. Id. at 1287; see Bobby v. Van Hook, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 13, 19, 175 L.Ed.2d 255 (2009) ([T]here comes a point at which evidence . . . can reasonably be expected to be only cumulative, and the search for it distractive from more important duties.). Furthermore, the decision concerning which witnesses, if any, to call, and when to call them, is the epitome of a strategic decision, and it is one that we will seldom, if ever, second guess. Rhode, 582 F.3d at 1284 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A review of the testimony of Sunkeissa Cantrell, Pamela Armstrong, and Gloria McElroy from Hall's first trial reveals no evidence that was not adequately presented through seven other alibi witnesses at trial. Moreover, Smedley testified during the hearing on Hall's motion for a new trial that she called all of the witnesses that, in her judgment, supported her theory of the case. We will not second-guess such decisions by counsel. See Rhode, 582 F.3d at 1284. The Alabama Court of Appeals' conclusion that further evidence to support Hall's alibi would have been cumulative of other evidence presented at trial was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.