Guy Sileo, Jr. v. Superintendent Somerset SCI, 702 F. App'x 95

In 1996 Jim Webb was found dead at the General Wayne Inn; Guy Sileo, Jr. was convicted of first‑degree murder and possessing an instrument of a crime in 2001.
Sileo exhausted state appeals and PCRA relief and then filed a §2254 habeas petition; the District Court denied it and the Third Circuit granted COA on whether omission of an alibi jury instruction prejudiced Sileo.
At trial Sileo proffered an alibi: he claimed to have left the Inn ~10:00 PM, driven to a bar (~18 minutes), and stayed there until ~11:00 PM; no witness definitively corroborated his whereabouts for part of the relevant interval.
The Commonwealth’s case was largely circumstantial: financial and personal motive (business partnership, life insurance, animosity), planning statements by Sileo, inconsistencies and misinformation he provided to investigators, perjury conviction about gun ownership, ballistics linking a .25‑caliber pistol, and timeline evidence suggesting Sileo had time alone at the scene.
Trial counsel presented the alibi defense but did not request a specific alibi jury instruction required under Pennsylvania law when alibi evidence is raised.
The Third Circuit reviewed prejudice under Strickland (and noted AEDPA standards) and, assuming de novo review, concluded Sileo failed to show a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different with an alibi instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction	Sileo: counsel presented an alibi but failed to request required jury instruction, and the prosecutor shifted burden in closing, so omission prejudiced him	Commonwealth: either no alibi was properly raised or, even if it was, omission did not create Strickland prejudice given the record	Denied — no Strickland prejudice shown; overwhelming evidence and weak alibi made a different outcome not reasonably probable
Whether prosecutor’s closing and lengthy deliberation show the alibi was outcome‑determinative	Sileo: prosecution’s focus on alibi and 7+ hour deliberation show alibi was central and likely decisive	Commonwealth: focus in closing shows relative importance only; deliberation length (under one day) is not dispositive	Rejected — closing focus and deliberation length don’t establish substantial probability of a different result

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance—performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (likelihood of different result must be substantial, not merely conceivable)
Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 894 A.2d 716 (Pa. 2006) (when alibi evidence is raised, court should instruct jury that alibi creating reasonable doubt requires acquittal)
McAleese v. Mazurkiewicz, 1 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (citation for Strickland standard in Third Circuit)
Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2010) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim for lack of factual showing of prejudice)
Fahy v. Horn, 516 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2008) (requiring evidence of reasonable probability that error altered trial outcome)
Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2009) (petitioner must present evidence that counsel’s omission likely changed result)