Alonso Corral v. Brian Foster
4f4th576
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Feb. 5, 2014 shooting in an apartment parking lot; victims Brautigam and Jimenez identified Alonso Corral as the shooter and Corral was convicted of attempted homicide and related counts.
- Defense theory: mistaken identity — a 15-year-old "Kenny" (white, not missing an arm) was the actual shooter; Kenny invoked the Fifth at trial and did not testify.
- Trial counsel did not introduce police booking photos or reports showing Kenny and Corral had similar height/weight/race, believing after reviewing Kenny's interrogation video and seeing Kenny in person that they did not look alike and that visual evidence might harm the defense.
- Jury asked about Kenny's appearance during deliberations; no appearance evidence had been admitted and the court told jurors to rely on their recollection.
- State post-conviction and Wisconsin Court of Appeals held counsel's omission was a reasonable strategic decision; Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. District court denied §2254 habeas; the Seventh Circuit affirms under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Corral's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance by not introducing appearance evidence of Kenny vs. Corral | Counsel unreasonably omitted available police reports and booking photos that showed striking similarity; omission falls below Strickland standard | Counsel made a reasoned strategic judgment after viewing Kenny's interrogation video and seeing him in court; evidence might have harmed defense | Court held counsel's choice was a reasonable strategic decision and not contrary to Strickland; AEDPA deference applies |
| Whether the Wisconsin Court of Appeals failed to evaluate counsel's performance "in light of all the circumstances" (Strickland/Kimmelman) | State court ignored police reports and photos and did not explicitly apply totality-of-circumstances test | State court considered the circumstances and counsel's testimony, and need not cite Supreme Court precedents verbatim | Court held state court's decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law and did consider relevant circumstances |
| Whether the state court unreasonably applied federal law under AEDPA | Corral: state court unreasonably applied Strickland by deferring to counsel despite available corroborating appearance evidence | State: deference appropriate; decision was a reasonable application of Strickland given counsel's plausible strategic reasons | Court held the state court reasonably applied Strickland and AEDPA bars relief |
| Whether habeas review must reach Strickland prejudice prong | Corral: prejudice should be considered because omitted evidence was strong | State: because performance prong fails, prejudice need not be reached | Court declined to reach prejudice; because performance prong survived AEDPA review, habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (reasonableness evaluated from counsel's perspective in light of all circumstances)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (clarifies AEDPA deference to state-court adjudications of Strickland claims)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (defines "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under §2254(d))
- Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312 (high bar for showing state-court decision was an unreasonable application)
- Dunn v. Reeves, 141 S. Ct. 2405 (per curiam) (calls for double deference when state court found counsel adequate)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (discusses deference to strategic choices and AEDPA limits)
- Toliver v. McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.) (evidence that might harm defendant supports strategic omission)
- Mosley v. Atchison, 689 F.3d 838 (7th Cir.) (reminds courts to avoid 20/20 hindsight in Strickland review)