Opinion ID: 3038665
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: As I stated in my declaration, I had some other

Text: issues with Mr. Mendoza and Mr. Terrones, and I would not — The way I practice, in formulating my defense, is I pick my issues, and I basically will go for the 10722 REYNOSO v. GIURBINO strongest issues in attacking — such as in this case — credibility of a witness. And I believe that my issues — since you’re ask- ing me to think back of what I would have done had I known — and since I had, like I stated, I had other issues regarding credibility that would have been to me much more, much stronger than cross-examining them on the reward. Q. Right, but you didn’t — A. I probably still would not have cross-examined them on the reward. (Emphasis added). The majority’s opinion illustrates why remand is necessary. Instead of being able to work from facts found by the district court, the opinion says, “the most likely explanation of what transpired is that the defense counsel had some discussion about the reward, but for whatever reason — perhaps because the conversation lacked sufficient specificity — Reglos either failed to receive or failed to understand the full message; in short, whether the prosecutor or defense counsel was at fault, and it may have been both, Reglos did not comprehend that Mendoza and Terrones had acknowledged their awareness of the reward, and she had no knowledge that they had expressed an interest in receiving it.” (Emphasis added). This fanciful rationalization by the majority opinion tactfully admits we are swimming in speculation, which is not appropriate given the seriousness of this case and of the issues it raises. At the very least, the majority’s discussion suggests a failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfy his burden of proof regarding his attorney’s behavior. Thus, we need to remand this case to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to answer the pivotal questions the REYNOSO v. GIURBINO 10723 court itself understood to be critical. As permitted by the statute, this case cries out for “further proceedings” in the interest of justice. The issue is very simple: Reglos either knew that Terrones and Mendoza knew about the reward, or she did not.