Torray Stitts v. Bill Wilson, 713 F.3d 887

Stitts was convicted of murder in Indiana state court and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment.
Direct appeal failed; Stitts filed a §2254 habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate an alibi defense.
Alibi claim: at the time of the shooting, Stitts allegedly was at the American Legion Post nightclub; his father testified he was present, and a deejay, Timothy Harris, would have supported the alibi but was not interviewed.
Trial counsel affidavit stated he considered but chose not to pursue an alibi defense and that there were no credible witnesses to testify believably as alibi; no detailed extent of investigation was provided.
State post-conviction court found interview of Stitts's father sufficient and rejected the alibi claim; Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting the trial court’s approach.
The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, remanding to determine the actual extent of alibi investigation and whether Strickland was satisfied, rather than simply whether any alibi investigation occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the state court's Strickland ruling unreasonable?	Stitts argues trial counsel's investigation was unreasonably limited to one alibi witness.	Stitts contends counsel's investigation falls within strategic discretion and any limited inquiry was reasonable.	Unreasonable application; remand to determine actual extent of investigation.
Did the alleged limited alibi investigation prejudice the outcome?	Alibi witnesses could have undermined the state's eyewitness testimony and created reasonable doubt.	No reasonable probability of acquittal even with alibi witnesses; trial strategy was sound.	Unreasonable prejudice finding; prejudice must be reassessed on remand.
Should the district court determine the exact scope of the alibi investigation on remand?	Yes, the district court must assess what counsel actually did and whether it was reasonable under Strickland.	The court should rely on state court findings and apply deference where appropriate.	Remand to district court to ascertain factual extent and then reassess Strickland de novo.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (limited investigation deemed unreasonable under Strickland)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (counsel's failure to investigate was unreasonable when central to case)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (reasonable-decision standard under AEDPA after unreasonable state-court decision)
Pinholster v. Cullen, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA review limited to record before state court; remand possible for factual inquiry)
Mosley v. Atchison, 689 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2012) (remand when state court did not resolve critical factual questions)
United States v. Best, 426 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2005) (few decisions not to present testimony await sufficient investigation)
Washington v. Smith, 219 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2000) (evaluate what alibi witnesses might contribute; not just whether any investigation occurred)
Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (U.S. 2012) (material effect of uncorroborated eyewitness testimony)