Donald Pierce v. Frank Vanihel, 93 F.4th 1036

Donald A. Pierce was convicted by an Indiana jury of four counts of felony child molesting, based primarily on the testimony of the ten-year-old victim, J.W., who was the daughter of his then-fiancée.
The state’s case relied almost entirely on J.W.’s statements and the testimony of several adults to whom she had confided her allegations; there was no physical evidence corroborating the abuse.
At trial, Pierce’s lawyer did not object to the sequence of hearsay testimony from adult witnesses recounting J.W.'s allegations before J.W. herself testified, which violated Indiana’s “drumbeat” rule against repetitive out-of-court statements before the victim testifies.
Pierce sought post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to object to this evidentiary issue.
The Indiana appellate courts found counsel’s failure to object was a strategic decision to show inconsistencies and paint J.W. as a liar. Relief was denied at all state levels, as well as in a subsequent federal habeas petition.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance due to failure to object to drumbeat hearsay testimony	Counsel's failure was not strategic; she was unaware of drumbeat rule, prejudicing Pierce's defense	Failure to object was a deliberate strategy to highlight inconsistencies in J.W.'s accounts	Failure to object was strategic, not constitutionally deficient
State court factual determination of counsel’s strategy	Indiana Court of Appeals unreasonably found trial counsel acted strategically, rather than out of ignorance	State court had evidence trial counsel intended to undermine J.W.'s credibility	State court’s fact determination was reasonable
Application of Strickland standard	State court unreasonably applied Strickland by excusing deficient performance	Counsel’s actions fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance	State court’s application of Strickland was reasonable
Federal habeas relief standard under §2254	State ruling conflicted with, or unreasonably applied, clearly established Supreme Court law	State court’s findings and legal conclusions were reasonable, entitled to AEDPA deference	No grounds for habeas relief; AEDPA deference applies

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (outlines the deferential standard for federal habeas review under AEDPA)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (clarifies the meaning of "unreasonable application" for habeas review)