Opinion ID: 3056773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alibi Witness

Text: Where a claim of ineffective assistance is based on counsel’s failure to call a witness, the burden to show prejudice is heavy because “often allegations of what a witness would have testified to are largely speculative.” Sullivan, 459 F.3d at 1109. Defense counsel must conduct a pretrial investigation that is reasonable under the circumstances. Futch v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 1483, 1486 (11th Cir. 1989). The manner of investigating or presenting a particular line of defense, however, “is a matter of strategy and is not ineffective unless the petitioner can prove that the chosen course, in itself, was unreasonable.” Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043, 1060 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the state court concluded that counsel did not render deficient performance by failing to interview and call Walker’s brother as an alibi witness because his testimony would have been cumulative in light of the testimony provided by other witnesses. The record also reflects that Walker’s brother was an inmate at a state correctional institution at the time he filed his affidavit. Counsel likely made a strategic decision because the testimony would have been cumulative and the jury could have viewed the testimony as incredible. Accordingly, Walker failed to show that counsel’s decision not to call his brother 9 Case: 11-13902 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 10 of 15 as a witness was unreasonable or that the result of his trial would have been different if his brother had testified. Thus, he has not shown that the state court’s conclusion was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law, including Strickland. Moreover, because the record shows that Walker was not entitled to relief on this claim, there was no error in denying Walker’s request for an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).