Taibu Grant v. Melvin Lockett, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4629

Grant was sentenced to life imprisonment after a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder of Keith Gilliam outside a Pittsburgh bar in 1997.
Moore, the Commonwealth’s key eyewitness, identified Grant, but other eyewitnesses testified that Grant was not the shooter.
Moore had undisclosed criminal history and was on parole during the relevant period, a factor central to the Brady/ineffective assistance issues.
Defense counsel did not present certain witnesses (Kim Oden and Marc Gee) whose affidavits later suggested exculpatory testimony.
State courts denied relief on PCRA and related claims; the District Court denied evidentiary hearings; the Third Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and remanded.
Court remanded to the District Court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus and considered the Brady and Strickland claims on the merits

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecution’s failure to disclose Moore’s full criminal history violated Brady.	Grant contends Brady violation due to undisclosed convictions and parole status.	Prosecution argues Moore’s history was accessible with reasonable diligence and disclosure was not required.	The Brady claim was denied on the merits; no evidentiary hearing was required.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Moore’s parole status and criminal history.	Grant argues deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.	State court deemed no prejudice due to lack of evidence of a deal; investigation was reasonable.	Grant is entitled to relief; district court erred; remand for conditional writ.
Whether trial counsel’s failure to call Kim Oden and Marc Gee warrants relief independent of Moore issue.	Affidavits from Oden and Gee bolster impeachment and identification defense.	Evidence would be cumulative; other witnesses testified and Moore’s testimony remained central.	Not necessary to decide due to Moore relief; affidavits support potential prejudice; issue treated as moot for remand.

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (impeachment of a probationary status as bias evidence matters to credibility)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel; deficiency and prejudice)
Pinholster v. Cullen, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (AEDPA review limited to state‑court record; no new evidentiary hearings in habeas)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (highly deferential review; double deference in habeas relief)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application of federal law when state court misapplies governing rule)
United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 (1984) (government not required to disclose information defendant already possesses or can obtain with diligence)
Siehl v. Grace, 561 F.3d 189 (2009) (framework for evaluating ineffective assistance claims on collateral review)
Rolan v. Vaugh, 445 F.3d 671 (2006) (totality of evidence to assess prejudice under Strickland)