Teshome Campbell v. Dan Reardon
780 F.3d 752
7th Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Teshome Campbell was convicted of first-degree murder (55-year sentence) based almost entirely on three eyewitnesses; no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Two eyewitnesses (Damion Johnson and Steven Peete) had been charged originally and received immunity to testify; the third (Rita Butler) watched the fight from inside a van facing away from the brawl.
- Police reports disclosed before trial identified three other eyewitnesses (Toni Leonard, Leroy Hunter, and Ieca Hunter) who either did not identify Campbell as a participant or placed other persons as primary assailants; none were interviewed or called by defense counsel at trial.
- Defense counsel presented no live defense witnesses, conducted no recorded pretrial witness interviews, and did not employ a private investigator; trial strategy emphasized poor lighting and inconsistent injury patterns to undermine identifications.
- State courts rejected Campbell’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, treating counsel’s failure to call the police-identified witnesses as a reasonable strategic choice; a dissenting state justice found counsel’s omissions egregious.
- The Seventh Circuit held the state courts unreasonably applied Strickland because they failed to assess whether counsel performed a reasonable pretrial investigation; the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel actually interviewed the witnesses and whether the witnesses would have testified credibly consistent with their statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to investigate and call police-identified eyewitnesses was deficient under Strickland | Campbell: counsel unreasonably failed to investigate/interview three available, disinterested eyewitnesses whose statements undermined prosecution witnesses and the State’s theory | State: omission was a strategic choice (argue darkness/poor identifications); police reports suggested some witnesses could not ID participants, so interviews were unnecessary | Court: State courts unreasonably applied Strickland; on this record no reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s duty to investigate |
| Whether counsel’s failure to impeach prosecution witnesses with full criminal histories and plea details was deficient | Campbell: counsel failed to expose Johnson and Peete’s incentives and juvenile adjudications that would undermine credibility | State: strategy choices and record support reasonableness of cross-examination choices | Court: Although not fully resolved on all claims, the critical failure was inadequate investigation of exculpatory witnesses; state court’s performance analysis was unreasonable on key points |
| Whether deficient performance prejudiced the defense (Strickland prejudice prong) | Campbell: had the three neutral witnesses testified, there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome because prosecution relied on eyewitness IDs and no physical evidence tied Campbell to the crime | State: prosecution’s eyewitnesses were persuasive; omitted testimony would be cumulative or minor | Court: After de novo review of prejudice prong, there is a reasonable probability the omitted testimony would have undermined confidence in the verdict; prejudice established if affidavits/statements are credited |
| Appropriate remedy and next steps | Campbell: entitlement to relief dependent on factual findings about counsel’s investigation and witness credibility | State: no hearing necessary because state rulings were reasonable | Held: Reverse denial of habeas; remand to district court for an evidentiary hearing to resolve whether counsel investigated and what witnesses would have said; if Strickland satisfied, grant writ |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (adequacy of investigation is the proper focus when counsel’s strategy depended on limited investigation)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference and standard for unreasonable application of clearly established law)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits federal review under §2254(d) to state-court record; discussion of evidentiary hearings)
- Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (2009) (counsel’s duty to conduct prompt investigation of circumstances)
- Stitts v. Wilson, 713 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013) (remand for evidentiary hearing where §2254(d) satisfied and factual development required)
- Mosley v. Atchison, 689 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2012) (deficient investigation can render strategic choices unreasonable)
- United States ex rel. Hampton v. Leibach, 347 F.3d 219 (7th Cir. 2003) (testimony from neutral eyewitnesses can create reasonable probability of different outcome)