Isaiah Brady v. Randy Pfister
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6438
7th Cir.2013Background
- Brady was state-convicted of first-degree murder for shooting McDaniel; conviction followed a bench trial with evidence including Brady’s domestic violence history, post-shooting conduct, physical scene evidence, and Brady’s flight to California.
- Brady contends trial counsel was ineffective for not calling four witnesses who would have testified to Brady’s post-shooting statements and events.
- Brady’s affidavits from Marshawn Brady, Sondra Burke, Elliott Moore, and Flora Small claimed alternative timelines and descriptions of the shooting.
- Illinois appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision denying Strickland claims for lack of prejudice; district court denied federal habeas relief under AEDPA, affirming the state court ruling as reasonable on prejudice.
- The Seventh Circuit undertook deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), examining whether the state court’s prejudice ruling was unreasonable and, if needed, reviewing the record de novo for prejudice.
- The court ultimately denied relief, applying a two-step Strickland analysis and concluding no reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed even if the witnesses had testified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state court reasonably applied Strickland prejudice | Brady argues prejudice shown by proffered witnesses | State court found witnesses unlikely to alter outcome due to close ties | No; prejudice not shown even under de novo review |
| Whether Brady’s ineffective-assistance claim must be reviewed de novo or under AEDPA | Two-step Strickland evaluated as independent elements | State court ruling should be respected under AEDPA | Standard of review does not change the outcome; denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court could substitute its own assessment for the state court’s prejudice finding | Remand for de novo prejudice review essential | Defer to state-court reasoning if reasonable | No; deference maintained, outcome unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (reliance on counsel’s performance evaluated with reasonable effect on merits)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA review of state-court decision requires not mere incorrectness but unreasonable application)
- Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013) (presumption of adjudication on the merits; rebuttal mechanisms clarified)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (Strickland prejudice reviewed de novo; deference to performance under AEDPA)
- Raygoza v. Hulick, 474 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2007) (family/friend witnesses may be admissible and credible; missing witnesses can affect outcome)