WPCu* vZ#Er;45謧Ƨn*"}&@)!PySQۦWi1Dl~fU6{ST/ga~eh+w3ӑ'zy;8?]VR2jse%Vzs`6raxs7)HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2Z$ !XIXXX    =IXXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z(Times New Roman   Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    *    _OftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.(;3$2#  0  .3  0  0CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.’0s v0?,}backupTABLE A 3|xU<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    **    _OftheDistrictofMaine,sittingbydesignation.(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.  6$ ' Moisakis0Moisakis .     Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    3    _ԀAproceduraldefaultmayalsobeexcusedifthedefendant  showsafundamentalmiscarriageofjustice,i.e.,"aconstitutional  violationthathasprobablyresultedintheconvictionofonewho \ isactuallyinnocent."Schlupv.Delo,513U.S.298,327(1995) 2 (internalquotationsandcitationsomitted).Hortonhasmadeno X suchshowinghere.L 9Z+.Courier New Regular\  `*Times New RomanTT3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)!i)  Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    5    _ԀHortonhasnotintroducedcompetentevidencetochallenge  thestatecourt'sfindingthatdefensecounselwelcomedthevoir  procedureforstrategicreasons.See28U.S.C.2254(e)(1) \ (statingthatinhabeasproceedingstatecourtfactual 2 determinationsarepresumptivelycorrectabsentcontraryshowingby X clearandconvincingevidence).Theonlyarguablycontrary . informationisanaffidavitfromHorton'shabeascounselcontaining   asummaryofhisconversationswithdefensecounselinwhich   defensecounselstatedthatheshouldhaveinsistedthatthe `  individualvoirdirebeconductedinpublic.Thisaffidavitis 6   inadequatetojustifydisregardingthestatecourt'sfinding.Cf.  \  UnitedStatesv.Maguire,600F.2d330,332(1stCir.1979)  2  (holdingthataffidavitofappellatecounselsummarizing   conversationswithtrialcounselinwhichtrialcounseladmitted    makingerrorsishearsayandcannotestablishineffective  assistanceclaim). d(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.  Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    7    _ԀThestatementswererelevantbecausetheyprovidedan  explanationforChristian'sconductonthenightofthemurders  whenhewasactingwithHorton.Becausetheprosecutioncharged \ Hortonwithfelonymurder(basedonthearmedrobberyofDesir), 2 evidencesuggestingthatHorton'scompatriothadamotivefor X  robbingDesirwasrelevanttoprovingtheprosecution'stheoryof  thecase. Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    1    _ԀHortonisAfricanAmerican.  Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    4    _ԀStricklandalsorequiresademonstrationofprejudice,i.e.,  "areasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounsel'sunprofessional  errors,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent." \ 466U.S.at694.CitingWallerv.Georgia,467U.S.39,4950& 2  n.9(1984),HortonarguesthattheprejudiceprongofStricklandis  automaticallysatisfiedbecausethedenialofapublictrialisa  structuralerror.Because,asdiscussedinthetext,weresolve \ theineffectiveassistanceclaimontheperformanceprongofthe 2 analysis,wedonotdecideifprejudicewouldbepresumedinthe X presentcircumstances.     Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    6    _ԀArguably,Horton'spublictrialrightswerenotviolated  becausehehasnotdemonstratedthatthetrialcourtactually  excludedanymembersofthepublicfromattendingthejuror \ questioning.SeeCommonwealthv.Harris,703A.2d441,446(Pa. 2 1998)(rejectingpublictrialclaimbasedonvoirdireconductedin X anteroombecause"noexclusionaryorderwasenteredandtherecord . doesnotestablishthatthecourtprohibitedthepublicfrom    observingtheindividualizedvoirdire").Moreover,thereisno  evidencethatthetrialcourtlimitedtheavailabilityofa  transcriptoftheindividualvoirdireproceeding.AsthePress \ EnterpriseCourtrecognized,inatleastsomecircumstances,"the 2 constitutionalvaluessoughttobeprotectedbyholdingopen X proceedingsmaybesatisfiedlaterbymakingatranscriptofthe . closedproceedingavailablewithinareasonabletime."464U.S.at   512. 4 Z$XIXXX  =IXXdd=    2    _ԀThejudge,prosecutor,clerk,courtreporter,andcourt  officerwerealsopresent. !XIXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !     #$XXI %N#$UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals##$ %N##XIX#$#  @-XXI [ @-FortheFirstCircuit#@-  [##XIX@-#      `  A') ` dE< ` A   No.031423 u  @!RUSSELLJ.HORTON, ! q @Petitioner,Appellant,    @tt)v. y  @<< PETERALLEN,ETAL., %u  @Respondents,Appellees. ! A') ` dE<|` A } @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT b @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS ^ @[Hon.MorrisE._Lasker_,  #  *      ׀SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   @@((SelyaandHoward,CircuitJudges, G and_Singal_,Q XXIf #  **      ׀XIX QDistrictJudge.   A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#       EmanuelHowardforappellant.  "Z%   AnnetteC._Benedetto_,AssistantAttorneyGeneralwithwhom "0& ThomasF.Reilly,AttorneyGeneral,wasonbrief,forappellees. #' *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  8&!*8&!   SI&!+ @38132@SMay26,2004 r'"-  RHCH(#." @38132 @ R(&!/  (  * ! N)$/? _  8IXXdd8*,X` XX*",US ,  (:!&),  4OY ` HOWARD,CircuitJudge .PetitionerRussellHorton,a  Massachusettsstateprisonerconvictedoftwofirstdegreemurders, x appealsfromthedenialofhispetitionforawritofhabeas $t corpus.Weaffirm.     I.FactualBackground |     ` InJune1998,ajuryconvictedHortonofcommittingtwo D   firstdegreemurdersandanassaultwiththeintenttomurder. We @  provideasummaryoftheevidenceintroducedatHorton'strial.   SeeCommonwealthv.Horton,753N.E.2d119,12224(Mass.2001). d   ` OnMay25,1994,thethreevictims,CarlosandManuel ` AraujoandKeplerDesirdrovetogetherfromBostontoBrockton,   Massachusetts.Duringthedrive,DesirinstructedManueltopick h upHortonandFrederickChristianonOwensStreetinBrockton. d Desirknewthesetwomen,buttheAraujosdidnot.Christianand  HortongotintothebackseatofthecarwithCarlos,andthefive l mendroveofftogether. h  ` Duringthedrive,Hortonannouncedthathewantedtorob   some"Dominicandrugdealers"andinstructedManueltodrivetoa p!" certainlocationwherehecouldcarryouthisplan.Alongtheway, #l$ Hortonexposedagunandaskedtheothersiftheyhadweapons. $ & Theyclaimedthattheydidnot.Uponarrivingatthesite,Horton t&!( andChristianleftthecarbutreturnedshortly,claimingthatthey  (p#* wereunabletocompletetherobbery.Afterreenteringthecar, )%, HortoninstructedManueltodrivetoanearbyparkinglot. x+&.  ` Intheparkinglot,whilestaringoutthewindow,Carlos  wasshotinthehead.Heimmediatelyslumpedforward,pretending \ tobedead.Aftertwomoreshotswerefired,CarlosheardHorton X say,"Gothroughtheirpockets."CarlosthensensedChristianmove   fromhisseatandheardhimaskHorton,"Didyoudohim?"Several `  minuteslater,ChristianandHortondepartedthescene.  \  Ѐ ` Afterlayingstillforafewmoremoments,Carlossawthe   bodiesofManuelandDesirandrantothenearesthouseforhelp. d  Carlostoldthepeopleinthehousethat"Russell"hadshothim. `  Later,atthehospital,Carlosrepeatedthat"Russell"hadshot   him. h  ` BarryStephenslivedneartheparkinglotwherethe d murdersoccurredandknewHortonandChristian.Hetestifiedthat  HortonhadsolddrugsforDesirbut,becauseofarecentfalling l out,HortonwasnolongerworkingforDesir.Healsotestified h that,onthenightofthemurders,hehadheardgunshots,andthat  fiveminuteslater,HortonandChristianhadarrivedathishouse. p  AccordingtoStephens,Horton"wasfoamingatthemouth"and !l" looking"wild."Hortontoldhimthat,"[He]smokedhim...[He] "$ smokedallthreeofthem."Inparticular,Hortonsaidthathehad t$& "smokedQuarter,"whichwasDesir'snickname.StephenstoldHorton  &p!( andChristiantoleaveimmediately. '#*  ` Atthetimeofthemurders,Christianwasinfinancial x)$, trouble.Onthedayoftheshootings,Christianstatedthathe $+t&. neededmoneyandaskedDesirfordrugsoncredit,arequestwhich  Desirrefused.HortonandChristianbelievedthatDesirwas \ carryingalargeamountofcashonthenightofthemurdersbecause X hewasplanningtotraveltoNewYorklaterthatnighttobuy   severalthousanddollarsworthofdrugs. `   ` Hortongaveinconsistentstatementsconcerninghis  \  whereaboutsonthenightofthemurders.Hefirsttoldthepolice   thathehadmetupwithChristian,thattheyhadgoneforawalk d  withanotherfriend,andhadgonehomeatapproximately11p.m. `  Afterthepoliceindicatedthattheyintendedtosearchthecarfor   fingerprintsandtalktoChristian,Hortonchangedhisstory.He h statedthatheandChristianwerewithDesirandtwoothermen,and d thattheyhaddriventoFullerAvenue,whereheandChristianleft  tobuydrugs.HetoldthepolicethatheexpectedDesirtoreturn l topickhimup,butDesirneverdid.  h   II.ProceduralBackground   3,X` X,X` X3   ` ThetrialcourtsentencedHortontoconcurrentlifeterms   ofimprisonmentforthemurdersanda1015yeartermforthe 8!" assault.Hortonsubsequentlyfiledamotionfornewtrial,see "4$ Mass.R.Crim.P.30,whichwasdeniedbythetrialcourt. $& Thereafter,theSupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusetts(SJC) <&!( rejectedHorton'sdirectappealandhisappealfromthedenialof '8#*  hisnewtrialmotion.SeeHorton,753N.E.2dat131. )$,  ` Hortonthenfiledatimelypetitionforawritofhabeas   corpusintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof \ Massachusetts.See28U.S.C.2254(d).Inhispetition,Horton X claimedthat(1)hisrighttoapublictrialwasviolated;(2)his   righttoconfrontwitnesseswasviolated;(3)thejuryinstructions `  wereincorrect;and(4)histrialcounselwasineffective.Inan  \  unpublishedmemorandumandorder,thedistrictcourtrejectedthe   petition.SeeHortonv.Maloney,No.02CV10416MEL,(D.Mass. d  Feb.5,2003).Hortonobtainedcertificatesofappealabilityfor `  eachoftheclaims,exceptthejuryinstructionissue.See28   U.S.C.2253. h J" III.Discussion d    ` Horton'sappealraisesthreeclaims.First,heargues , thatthetrialcourtviolatedhisSixthAmendmentrighttoapublic  trialbyholdingtheindividualvoirdireofpotentialjurorsinan 4 anteroomratherthanthecourtroom.Second,hecontendsthatthe 0 trialcourtviolatedhisSixthAmendmentrighttoconfront   witnessesbyadmittingcertainhearsaytestimony.Third,he 8!" assertsthathisSixthAmendmentrighttoeffectivecounselwas "4$ violatedbecausedefensecounseldidnotcallcertainalibi $& witnessesandfailedtointerviewcertainpotentialcharacter <&!( witnesses. '8#*  ` Horton'shabeascorpuspetitionisgovernedbythe )$, AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct(AEDPA).See28 @+&. U.S.C.22442266.UndertheAEDPA,afederalcourtmaygranta  habeaspetitionifitfindsthatthestatecourtadjudication \ "resultedinadecisionthatwascontraryto,orinvolvedan X unreasonableapplicationofclearlyestablishedFederallaw."28   U.S.C.2254(d)(1). `   ` Underthe"contraryto"prongof28U.S.C.2254(d)(1),  \  thepetitionmaybegrantedifthestatecourt"arrivesata   conclusionoppositetothatreachedby[theSupreme]Courtona d  questionoflaworifthestatecourtdecidesacasedifferently `  than[theSupreme]Courthasonasetofmaterially   indistinguishablefacts."Williamsv.Taylor,529U.S.362,412 h 13(2000).Underthe"unreasonableapplication"prongof28U.S.C. d 2254(d)(1),thepetitionmaybegrantedifthestatecourt  "identifiesthecorrectgoverninglegalprinciplefrom[the l Supreme]Court'sdecisionsbutunreasonablyappliesthatprinciple h tothefactsoftheprisoner'scase."Id.at413.Tobean  unreasonableapplicationofgoverninglaw,thestatecourt's p  determinationmustnotonlybeincorrectbutalsobeobjectively !l" unreasonable.Id.at41011.Inotherwords,ifthepetition "$ presentsaclosecall,itmustberejected,evenifthestatecourt t$& waswrong.SeeNomv.Spencer,337F.3d112,116(1stCir.2003).  &p!( If,however,thepetitionpresentsafederalclaimthatwasraised '#* beforethestatecourtbutwasleftunresolved,theAEDPA'sstrict x)$, standardsdonotapply.SeeFortiniv.Murphy,257F.3d39,47 $+t&. (1stCir.2001).Insuchacircumstance,wereviewtheclaimde  novo.SeeNortonv.Spencer,351F.3d1,5(1stCir.2003). \  (83!" 3"   `  352  A  .3  0   PublicTrial 355݌X (# (# Ќ   ` Hortonandtheprosecutionjointlyrequestedthatthe   trialcourtconductanindividualvoirdireofprospectivejurors |  toaskthemabouttheeffectthatracialprejudiceandpretrial ( x  publicitycouldhaveontheirabilitytodecidethecase $  impartially., #  1      ׀Massachusettslawrequiresthatanindividualvoir   direbeconducted"outsidethepresenceofotherpersonsaboutto ,|  becalledasjurorsoralreadycalled."Mass.Gen.L.ch.234, ( 28.Tocomplywiththisstatute,thecourtconductedthe  individualvoirdireinananteroom,whiletheotherpotential 0 jurorswaitedinthecourtroom.Hortonandhiscounselwere , presentfortheentireproceeding,andHortonwasabletoaidhis  counselthroughout.:f #  2      ׀Defensecounseldidnotobjecttoconducting 4 theindividualvoirdireintheanteroom.Accordingly,theSJC 0 heldthattheissuewasnotpreservedforappellatereviewand   considereditonlyfor"asubstantiallikelihoodofamiscarriage 8!" ofjustice."Horton,753N.E.2dat127.TheSJCrejectedthe "4$ claimbecauseHortondidnotsufferprejudicefromthevoirdire $& procedure.Id.at128. <&!(  ` CitingPressEnterpriseCo.v.SuperiorCourt,464U.S.  501(1984),Hortonarguedinthedistrictcourtthatthisvoirdire \ procedureviolatedhisrighttoapublictrialbecausethepublic X wasexcludedfromattendingtheindividualjurorquestioning.The   districtcourtrejectedthisclaimonproceduraldefaultgrounds `  becausedefensecounseldidnotobjectattrial.  \   ` Generally,habeasreviewisprecludedwhenastatecourt   reachesitsdecisiononanindependentandadequatestatelaw d  ground.SeeColemanv.Thompson,501U.S.722,729(1991).A `  statecourt'sdecisiontofindaforfeiture,basedonthe   defendant'sfailuretoobjectattrial,isanindependentand h adequategroundfordecisionsolongasthestatecourt d consistentlyappliesitscontemporaneousobjectionruleandhasnot  waiveditintheparticularcasebybasingthedecisiononsome l otherground.SeeBurksv.Dubois,55F.3d712,716(1stCir. h 1995).Thatisthesituationhere.TheSJCconsistentlyenforces  therulethatunpreservedclaimsareforfeited,seeGunterv. p  Maloney,291F.3d74,79(1stCir.2002),andenforcedtherulein !l" theinstantcase,seeHorton,753N.E.2dat127.TheSJCdid "$ reviewtheclaimfora"substantialmiscarriageofjustice,"id., t$& butthissortoflimitedreviewdoesnotworkawaiverofthe  &p!( contemporaneousobjectionrequirement.SeeGunter,291F.3dat79 '#*  80;Dubois,55F.3dat716n.2;Tartv.Massachusetts,949F.2d x)$, 490,496(1stCir.1991);Puleiov.Vose,830F.2d1197,1200(1st  Cir.1987). \   ` BecausetheSJCresolvedHorton'sclaimonstatelaw X grounds,thehabeascourtmayconsidertheclaimifHorton   establishes"causeandprejudice"withrespecttotheprocedural `  default. #  3      ׀SeeDretkev.Haley,!U.S.,124S.Ct.1847,185152  \  (2004);Coleman,501U.S.at750. Tosatisfythecauseportionof   thetest,Hortonmustshow"thatsomeobjectivefactorexternalto   thedefenseimpededcounsel'seffortstocomplywiththeState's 8  proceduralrule."Murrayv.Carrier,477U.S.478,488(1986). 4 Onewaytoestablishcauseistodemonstratethatdefensecounsel's  inactionconstitutedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.See < Coleman,501U.S.at752;Carrier,477U.S.at488;Gunter,291 8 F.3dat81.Hortontakesthistackinanefforttoestablish  cause.  @  ` UnderStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,688(1984), < counsel'sperformanceisineffectiveonlyifitwasobjectively   unreasonableunderprevailingprofessionalnorms./ #  4      ׀Toprevailon D!" 4OY  4 4  hisclaim,Hortonmustovercomethe"strongpresumptionthat...  thechallengedactionmightbeconsideredsoundtrialstrategy." \ Tejedav.Dubois,142F.3d18,22(1stCir.1998)(quoting X Strickland,466U.S.at689).Hortoncontendsthathiscounselwas   ineffectivebyfailingtoobjecttothevoirdireprocedurebecause `  the"publictrialrightofacriminaldefendantwasclearly  \  establishedbythetimeoftrial."Thetrialcourtrejectedthis   claim,findingthatHorton'scounselwelcomedtheindividualvoir d  direprocedurebecause"itwasmostconducivetoelicitingcandid `  responsesbythejurorsonpossibleprejudice."TheSJCagreed,   notingthat"thelesspublicsettingforthevoirdireinall h likelihoodhelpedratherthanharmed[Horton]."Horton,753N.E.2d d at128.# #  5      ׀   ` Insomecircumstances,defensecounsel'sinterestin  protectingtheaccused'srighttoacompletelypublictrialmay \ givewaytootherconcerns,suchasmaximizingtheaccused'schance X ofobtainingafavorablejurycomposition.Forthisreason,the   defendantmayhavean"interestinprotectingjurorprivacyin `  ordertoencouragehonestanswerstothevoirdirequestions."  \  PressEnterprise,464U.S.at515(Blackmun,J.,concurring).In   particular,defensecounselmaywishtoshieldjurorsfrompublic d  questioningwhentheobjectiveistoidentifypossibleracial `  biasesinthevenirebecausetheprospectsofapotentialjuror   publicallyadmittingsuchbiasareslim.Asonecourtnoted,"It h isnodoubtadifficultthingforanypersontoadmittoanydegree d ofracialbias,buttodoso[publically]mightwellrequirewhat  thetheologiansusedtocallheroicvirtue."UnitedStatesv. l King,911F.Supp.113,117(_ S.D.N.Y._ Ԁ1995),_ aff'd_ 140F.3d76(2d h Cir.1998);seealsoInreS.CarolinaPressAss'n,946F.2d1037,  1043(4thCir.1991)("[F]earofpublicitythatmightbegivento p  answersofvenirepersonsduringvoirdiremaysoinhibitorchill !l" truthfulresponsesthatanaccusedisdeniedthefairtrialto "$ whichheisentitledundertheFourteenthAmendment");United t$& Statesv.Colabella,448F.2d1299,1304(2dCir.1971)("Itistoo  &p!( muchtoexpectofhumannaturethatajurorwouldvolunteerinopen '#* court,beforehisfellowjurors,thathewouldbeinfluencedinhis  verdictbyanewspaperstoryofthetrial.Notonlyso,buthad \ oneormoreofthemsaidtheywouldbesoinfluenced,and X especiallyiftheyhadthenexplainedwhy,thedamagetothe   defendantwouldhavebeenspreadtothelisteningotherjurors.") `  (internalXIXXXIquotationsandcitationsomitted);UnitedStatesv.  \  _ Koubriti_ ,252F.Supp.2d424,431(E.D.Mich.2003)("The   potentialjurorswillbemorecandidintheirresponsesiftheydo d  nothavetoworryaboutwhatthepublic'sopinionofthose `  responsesmightbe.")(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted);   KimbaM.Wood,ReexaminingtheAccessDoctrine,69S.Cal.L.Rev. h 1105,1119(1996)("Whenjurorsarereticent,thepartiesare d deniedtheopportunitytoprobemeaningfullyforbias.Themore  intimatesettingoftherobingroomisfarmoreconducivefor l probingbias."). h #XIXXXIZ#    XIXXXI ` WhileHortonmayhavehadarighttoinsistthatthe  entirevoirdirebeconductedpublically,seeStatev.Torres,844 p  A.2d155,158(R.I.2004),thestrategicadvantagethathereceived !l" fromtheindividualvoirdiretakingplaceinprivatecannotbe "$ ignored.9 #  6      ׀Defensecounsel'sdecisiontoagreetoaclosed t$& individualvoirdirewasanobjectivelyreasonablestrategy  designedtoelicitforthcomingresponsesfromthejurorsabout \ racialbias.Accordingly,wecannotconcludethatdefensecounsel X wasineffectiveinfailingtoobjecttothevoirdireprocedure.   BecauseHortonhasfailedtodemonstrateineffectiveassistanceof `  counsel,hehasnotestablishedcausefortheproceduraldefault.  \  Thedistrictcourtthereforecorrectlydeclinedtoreachthemerits   ofthepublictrialclaim.SeeDubois,55F.3dat718. d   (88 ! !" 3"   `  3/c2  B  .3  0   ConfrontationClause  3/ckc݌`  (# (# Ќ   ` OverHorton'sobjection,thetrialcourtadmitted ( testimonyfromoneHenryGarciathat,onthedayofthemurders,  Christianhadstatedthatheneededmoneyandthat_ Desir_ Ԁhad 0 refusedtogivehimdrugsoncredit.The_ SJC_ Ԁaffirmedthe , admissionofthistestimonyunderthestateofmindexceptionto  thehearsayrule.SeeHorton,753N.E.2dat125.TheSJC's 4 analysiswasbasedexclusivelyonMassachusettsevidencelawand 0 didnotreferenceHorton'sConfrontationClauseclaim.Id.   BecausetheSJCdidnotresolvetheconstitutionalissue,we 8!" consideritdenovo.SeeFortini,257F.3dat47. "4$  ` Afterthisappealwasbriefed,theSupremeCourtdecided  Crawfordv.Washington,U.S.,124_ S.Ct_ .1354(2004),#XIXXXI]#XIXXXIԀwhich \ changedthelegallandscapefordeterminingwhethertheadmission X ofcertainhearsaystatementsviolatestheaccused'srightto   confrontwitnesses.InCrawford,theCourtheldthatthe `  ConfrontationClausebarstheadmissionoftestimonialhearsay  \  unlessthe_ declarant_ Ԁisunavailableandtheaccusedhashadaprior   opportunitytocrossexaminethedeclarant.Id.at1374.This d  holdingabrogated,inpart,thepriorrulethattheadmissionof `  hearsaydidnotviolatetheConfrontationClauseifthedeclarant   wasunavailableandthestatementfellundera"firmlyrooted h hearsayexception"orotherwiseboreparticularizedguaranteesof d trustworthiness.Ohiov.Roberts,448U.S.56,66(1980).   ` Atoralargument,thepartiesdisagreedoverCrawford's l applicationtoHorton'spetition.Thedebateisimportantbecause h "newrulesofcriminalprocedure"donotapplyinhabeas  proceedingsunlesstheyfallwithineitheroftwoexceptions:(1) p  theruleplacesaclassofprivateconductbeyondthepowerofthe !l" statetoproscribe,or(2)theruleisa"watershedrule"of "$ criminalprocedure,implicatingthefundamentalfairnessand t$& accuracyoftheproceeding.SeeTeaguev.Lane,489U.S.288,310  &p!( 11(1989);Curtisv.Duval,124F.3d1,5(1stCir.1997).While '#* thequestionoftheretroactiveeffectofCrawford,ifany,isan x)$, importantone,webypassthequestionherebecause,asexplained $+t&. below,Crawforddoesnotapplytothiscase.SeeCampitiv.  Matesanz,333F.3d317,32122(1stCir.2003)(statingthatcourt \ neednotresolveaTeagueissuethatwassusceptibleofresolution X onnarroweroreasiergrounds).    ` Crawforddrawsadistinctionbetweentestimonialand `  nontestimonialhearsayandappliesonlytotheformercategoryof  \  statements.See124S.Ct.at1374.AstheCourtexplained,"Where   nontestimonialhearsayisatissue,itiswhollyconsistentwith d  theFramers'designtoaffordtheStatesflexibilityintheir `  developmentofhearsaylawasdoesRoberts,andaswouldan   approachthatexemptedsuchstatementsfromConfrontationClause t scrutinyaltogether."Id.Thus,unlessChristian'sstatements  p qualifyas"testimonial,"CrawfordisinapplicableandRoberts  continuestoapply. x  ` TheCrawfordCourtdeclinedtoprovideacomprehensive $t definitionoftestimonialstatements.Id.at1374&n.10.Itdid,   however,providethree"formulationsof[the]coreclassof |  testimonialstatements."Id.at1364.Inthefirst,testimonial (!x" statementsconsistof"exparteincourttestimonyorits "$$ functionalequivalentthatis,materialsuchasaffidavits, $& custodialexaminations,priortestimonythatthedefendantwas ,&|!( unabletocrossexamineorsimilarpretrialstatementsthat '(#* declarantswouldreasonablyexpecttobeusedprosecutorially." )$, Id.Thesecondformulationdescribedtestimonialstatementsas 0+&. consistingof"extrajudicialstatements...containedin  formalizedtestimonialmaterials,suchasaffidavits,depositions, \ priortestimony,orconfessions."Id.(quotingWhitev.Illinois, X 502U.S.346,365(1992)).Finally,thethirdexplainedthat   testimonialstatementsarethose"madeundercircumstanceswhich `  wouldleadanobjectivewitnessreasonablytobelievethatthe  \  statementwouldbeavailableforuseatalatertrial."Id.While   theCourtdeclinedtosettleonasingleformulation,itnoted d  that,"[_ w]hatever_ Ԁelsetheterm[testimonial]covers,itapplies. `  ..topriortestimonyatapreliminaryhearing,beforeagrand   jury,orataformertrial,andtopoliceinterrogations.These h arethemodernabusesatwhichtheConfrontationClausewas d directed."Id.at1374.#XIXXXIh#XIXXXI   ` Inlightoftheseformulations,Christian'sstatementsdo l notqualifyastestimonial.Theywerenotexparteincourt h testimonyoritsequivalent;werenotcontainedinformalized  documentssuchasaffidavits,depositions,orpriortestimony p  transcripts;andwerenotmadeaspartofaconfessionresulting !l" fromcustodialexamination.Rather,Christian'sstatementswere "$ madeduringaprivateconversationwithGarcia.Inshort, t$& Christiandidnotmakethestatementsundercircumstancesinwhich  &p!( anobjectivepersonwould"reasonablybelievethatthestatement '#* wouldbeavailableforuseatalatertrial."Id.at1364. x)$, BecauseChristian'sstatementswerenontestimonial,theiradmission $+t&. isoutsideofCrawford'sscope.Seeid.("anaccuserwhomakesa  formalstatementtogovernmentofficersbearstestimonyinasense \ thatapersonwhomakesacasualremarktoanacquaintancedoes X not");#XIXXXI}#XIXXXIUnitedStatesv.Reyes,362F.3d536,540n.4(8thCir.   2004)(statingthatCrawforddoesnotapplytococonspirator `  statementsbecausetheyarenontestimonial).Accordingly,weapply  \  RobertstodeterminewhethertheadmissionofChristian'shearsay   statementsviolatedHorton'sConfrontationClauserights. d   ` Asdiscussedabove,Robertspermitstheadmissionofa `  hearsaystatementofanunavailabledeclarantaslongasthe   statement"fallswithinafirmlyrootedhearsayexception"or h otherwisebearsparticularizedguaranteesoftrustworthiness.See d supraat1314.Therelevantexceptionhereisstateofmind.  UnderMassachusettslaw,thestateofmindexceptionpermitsthe l admissionofstatementsthatdemonstratethedeclarant'sintentto h performsomefutureact.SeeP.J.Liacosetal.,Handbookof  MassachusettsEvidence,8.15(7thed.1999)(citingcases).The p  SJCdeterminedthatChristian'sstatementsthatheneededmoneyand !l" thatDesirwouldnotgivehimdrugsoncreditsuggestedhisintent "$ tosubsequentlyrobDesir,andthestatementswereadmissibleto t$& showthisintent.SeeHorton,753N.E.2dat125.) #  7        &p!(  ` TheadmissionofChristian'sstatementscomportswith  Roberts.First,Christianwasunavailabletotestifybecausehe \ wasalsoaccusedofthemurders.SeeCommonwealthv.Christian, X 722N.E.2d416(Mass.2000).Second,thestatementsfallwithina   firmlyrootedhearsayexceptionforstatementsevidencingthe `  declarant'sstateofmind.  \   ` Ahearsayexceptionisfirmlyrootedif,"inlightof   longstandingjudicialandlegislativeexperience[theexception] d  restsonsuchasolidfoundationthatadmissionofvirtuallyany `  evidencewithinitcomportswiththesubstanceofthe   constitutionalprotection."Lillyv.Virginia,527U.S.116,126 h (1999)(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted).Thestateof d mindexceptionhasbeenrecognizedbytheSupremeCourtandtheSJC  foroveracentury.SeeMut.LifeIns.Co.v.Hillman,145U.S. l 285,29596(1892)(admittingletterstatingthatdeclarant h intendedtotraveltoacertaindestinationwithanother);  Commonwealthv.Trefethen,31N.E.961,96465(Mass.1892) p  (admittingstatementofdeclarant'sintentiontocommitsuicide). (!x" Indeed,"theexceptionexistsineveryjurisdictioninthecountry, "$$ whetherbystatute,courtrule,orcommonlawtradition,"Hayesv. $& York,311F.3d321,325(4thCir.2002),andhasbeencodifiedin ,&|!( theFederalRulesofEvidence,seeFed.R.Evid.803(3).The '(#* premiseforadmittinghearsaystatementsevidencingstateofmind  isthatsuchstatementsarereliablebecauseoftheir"spontaneity \ and[the]resultingprobablesincerity."McCormickonEvidence, X 274(5thed.1999).Thus,therationaleforthestateofmind   exceptionissimilartotherationalefortheotherhearsay `  exceptionsthattheSupremeCourthasrecognizedas"firmly  \  rooted."SeeLilly,527U.S.at127(statingthatfirmlyrooted   exceptionsarethosethatpermittheadmissionofdeclarations d  "madewithoutmotivetoreflectonthelegalconsequencesofone's `  statementsandinsituationsthatareexceptionallyconduciveto   veracity").Consideringthestateofmindexception'slineageand h policyorigins,weagreewiththemanyothercourtsthathave d recognizedittobeafirmlyrootedhearsayexception.See,e.g.,  Hayes,311F.3dat326;Moorev.Reynolds,153F.3d1086,1107 x (10thCir.1998);Terrovonav.Kincheloe,852F.2d424,427(9th $t Cir.1988);Barberv.Scully,731F.2d1073,1075(2dCir.1984);   Lenzav.Wyrick,665F.2d804,811(8thCir.1981);Frazierv.   Mitchell,188F.Supp.2d798,81314(N.D.Ohio2001);United 4!" Statesv.Alfonso,66F.Supp.2d261,267(D.P.R.1999);Reyesv. "0$ State,819A.2d305,313(Del.2003);Peoplev.Waidla,996P.2d $& 46,67n.8(Cal.2000);Wyattv.State,981P.2d109,115(Alaska D&!( 1999);Statev.Wood,881P.2d1158,1169(Ariz.1994). '@#*  ` Tosumup,becauseChristian'shearsaystatementswere )$, nontestimonial,weapplyRobertstodecidetheConfrontationClause H+&. issue.TheadmissionofthesestatementssatisfiesRobertsbecause  Christianwasunavailabletotestify,andthestatementswere \ admittedpursuanttoafirmlyrootedhearsayexception. X Accordingly,Horton'sConfrontationClauserightswerenot   violated. `   ((88! !" 3"   `  32  C  .3  0   IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel  @   3݌ \  (# (# Ќ   ` Finally,Hortonclaimsthatthe_ SJC_ Ԁmisappliedfederal $  lawinrejectinghisineffectiveassistanceofcounselarguments   basedondefensecounsel'sfailuretocallhisfamilymembersas ,|  alibiwitnessesandtointerviewhisschoolteachersaspossible ( characterwitnesses.Inassessingthesearguments,theSJCapplied  itsrulethat"onaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselin 0 acaseofmurderinthefirstdegree,thedefendantmustshowthere , wasanerrorinthetrialandthattheerrorlikelyinfluencedthe  jury'sdecision."Horton,753N.E.2dat127(citingCommonwealth 4 v.Wright,584N.E.2d621(Mass.1992)).TheWrightstandardisat 0 leastasgeneroustothedefendantasthefederalineffective   assistanceofcounselstandard.SeeMellov.DiPaulo,295F.3d 8!" 137,14445(1stCir.2002).Becausethe_ SJC_ Ԁappliedthe "4$ appropriatelegalstandardtoHorton'sclaims,hecanonlysucceed $& bydemonstratingthattheSJCunreasonablyappliedthisstandardto <&!( thefactsofhiscase.Seesupraat56.󀀀 '8#*  ` TheSJCrejectedHorton'sclaimsbecauseitdetermined )$, thatdefensecounselhadvalidreasonsfordecliningtocall @+&. Horton'sfamilymembersandthatHortonwasnotprejudicedby  defensecounsel'sfailuretointerviewhisteachers.SeeHorton, \ 753N.E.2dat12829.Hortonarguedthathisfamilymemberswould X haveestablishedhisalibibytestifyingthathewashomeat10   p.m.,thetimethatthemurdersoccurred.The_ SJC_ Ԁconcluded, `  however,thathadthesewitnessesbeencalledtheywouldhavebeen  \  opentodamagingimpeachment.Id.at128.Therefore,itwasa   reasonabledecisionnottocallthem.Id.TheSJCalso d  determinedthatinterviewingHorton'steacherswouldnothave `  benefittedthedefensebecausetherewouldhavebeentestimonyof   anunflatteringchangeinHorton'sdemeanorjustpriortothe h murders.Id.at12829. d  ` Asdiscussedabove,tosucceedonhisineffective  assistanceofcounselclaims,Hortonmustshowthathiscounsel's l performancewasdeficientandthatthedeficientperformance h prejudicedthedefense.Seesupraat910;Phoenixv.Matesanz,  233F.3d77,81(citing_ Strickland_ ,466U.S.at687)."Thehabeas p  courtmustevaluatethechallengedconductfromcounsel's !l" perspectiveatthetime...makingeveryefforttoeliminatethe "$ distortingeffectsofhindsight."Lemav.UnitedStates,987F.2d t$& 48,51(1stCir.1993)(internalcitationsandquotationsomitted).  &p!( Itmustalsostartwiththepresumptionthatthechallengedaction '#*  wassoundtrialstrategy.Phoenix,233F.3dat82. x)$,  ` The_ SJC_ Ԁreasonablydeterminedthatdefensecounselmade   asounddecisionindecliningtocallHorton'sfamilymembersas \ alibiwitnesses.Aswehaveexplained,7 X m  ` 0 ` Thedecisionwhethertocallaparticular   witnessisalmostalwaysstrategic,   requiringabalancingofthebenefitsand `  risksoftheanticipatedtestimony.The 6   witnessmaynottestifyasanticipatedor  \  thewitness'sdemeanororcharactermay  2  impressthejuryunfavorablyandtaintthe   jury'sperceptionoftheaccused;orthe   testimony,thoughsympathetic,mayprompt d  jurorstodrawinferencesunfavorableto :  theaccused.` ` k` k m Lema,987F.2dat54(internalcitationsomitted).    `  ` WDefensecounselinterviewedthefamilymembersbefore h decidingthattheirtestimonywouldnothavehelpedHorton'scase. d Theproposedalibitestimonywouldhavebeenopentoimpeachment  becauseitwasbasedprimarilyonvagueassertionsfromHorton's l fatherontheapproximatetimeofabasketballgame.More h important,theproposedtestimonywouldhaveconflictedwith  Horton'sownversionofevents(thathecamehomeat11p.m.), p  leavingthejurywiththeoptionofrejectingthealibiwitnesses's !l" testimonyorrejectingHorton'sownstory.Consideringthe "$ possibledangertothedefensefromcallingthesewitnesses,the t$& decisiontobypassthemreasonablycouldbeviewedaslegitimate  &p!( trialstrategy.SeePhoenix,233F.3dat82n.2(statingthat '#*  trialstrategydoesnotconstituteineffectiveassistanceunless x)$, counsel'sdecisionwas"sopatentlyunreasonablethatnocompetent  attorneywouldhavemadeit"). \   ` The_ SJC_ ԀwasalsoreasonableinrejectingHorton'sclaim X concerningdefensecounsel'sfailuretointerviewhisteachers.   DespitebeingtoldbyHorton'sfatherthatHorton'steacherscould `  providepositivecharactertestimony,defensecounselfailedto  \  speakwiththem.Insomeinstances,thefailureofdefensecounsel   tointerviewwitnessescanestablishthedeficientperformance d  prongoftheStricklandanalysis.See,e.g.,Rileyv.Payne,352 `  F.3d1313,1318(9thCir.2003).Butevenassumingthatdefense   counsel'sperformancewasdeficientinthisrespect,theerror h wouldnothaveprejudicedHorton'sdefense. d  ` Theaffidavitssummarizingtheteachers'expected  testimonyaremixed.Theteacherswouldhavepresentedagenerally l favorableviewofHortonasacourteouspersonandagoodstudent. h ButtheyalsowouldhavealsotestifiedthatHortonseemed  distractedinthedaysleadingtothemurders.Inparticular,one p  teacherwouldhavetestifiedthat,becauseofHorton'schanged !l" demeanor,sheaskedhimif"anythingwasgoingon,"andhe "$ respondedthathe"wasjusttakingcareofbusiness."Testimonyof t$& anoticeablechangeinHorton'sdemeanor,justpriortothe  &p!( murders,likelywouldhavedamagedhiscasemorethantestimony '#* abouthisgeneralgoodcharacterwouldhavehelped.Considering x)$, thelimitedpositiveimpact(ifany)thatthecharactertestimony $+t&. wouldhavehad,the_ SJC_ Ԁreasonablyconcludedthatdefensecounsel's  failuretointerviewthesewitnesseslikelywouldnothave \ influencedthetrialoutcome.See_ Siers_ v.Weber,259F.3d969, X 97475(8thCir.2001)(affirmingdenialofhabeaspetitionbased   onineffectiveassistancecounselduetocounsel'sfailureto `  interviewwitnesseswheredefendantfailedtoestablishprejudice);  \  UnitedStatesv.Mitchell,216F.3d1126,1131(D.C.Cir.2000)   (similar);Clabournev.Lewis,64F.3d1373,1382(9thCir.1995) d  (similar);_ Galowski_ v.Murphy,891F.2d629,638(7thCir.1989) `  (similar).   ] IV.Conclusion  h Y ` Forthereasonssetforthabove,thejudgmentofthe 0 districtcourtis affirmed .#XIXXXI$#XIXXXI , #XIXXXI軿# XIXXXI  #XIXXXI"# XXXXI X X̀#@ q##XIX@#