Opinion ID: 151087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Character Witnesses

Text: Finally, Hall contends that he was deprived of effective trial counsel because Smedley did not call persons who had and would have testified as to Darryl Hall's good character. The trial court and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found that Smedley's performance was not ineffective, and that conclusion is not unreasonable. Several witnesses at the third trial testified that Hall was not involved in gang activity. Hall's father testified that Hall had never had serious discipline problems or problems at school. Hall has failed to point to any additional character evidence which would have made any difference in the outcome of the trial. In his appellate brief, Hall merely cites to the testimony in the first trial of Linda Dowe and Gregory Dowe that he had a good reputation. Again, it 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). And in any event, Hall has not shown that testimony that he had a good reputation would have raised a reasonable probability of a different verdict. In summary, we conclude that the Alabama courts' conclusionthat Hall's trial counsel was not ineffectiveis not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, nor is it contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.