Whether a criminal defense lawyer renders ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington when she intentionally presents falsified evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a state prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus relief when the last reasoned state court decision was either “contrary to” or “involved an unreasonable application of’ this Court’s precedents. A state prisoner is entitled to relief under the “unreasonable application” prong of this disjunctive test if “the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from this Court’s cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner’s case.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407 (2000). Section 2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a “guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,” not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). A petition for writ of certiorari to this Court should be granted where a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 10(c). This situation presents a compelling reason for this Court to grant review. The issue presented in Mr. Hyman’s habeas petition was whether his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during his capital murder trial pursuant to this Court’s holding in Strickland v. Washington. A key factual controversy in the case was whether a conversation occurred between Mr. Hyman’s lawyer and the prosecution’s key witness. In denying Mr. Hyman relief, the Fourth Circuit majority found that the conversation never happened, necessarily concluding that Mr. Hyman’s counsel fabricated the conversation in front of the jury. In other words, the i Court decided that Mr. Hyman’s lawyer effectively resorted to making up evidence as sound trial strategy. After making this finding, the Court ultimately concluded that Mr. Hyman’s lawyer did not provide deficient performance, and that Mr. Hyman did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. The Court then upheld his first-degree murder conviction and his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as constitutional. The resulting questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether a criminal defense lawyer renders ineffective assistance of counsel under this Court’s holding in Strickland v. Washington when she intentionally presents falsified evidence in front of the jury during her client’s capital murder trial; and 2. Whether a federal court should turn a blind eye to a clear and egregious constitutional violation that is readily apparent from the record due to an unnecessarily strict application of procedural rules. iii DIRECTLY RELATED PRIOR PROCEEDINGS (1) State v. Terrence Lowell Hyman, Superior Court, Bertie County, 01 CRS 50423 Gudgment and commitment for first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole entered September 16, 2003). (2) State v. Terrence Lowell Hyman, North Carolina Court of Appeals, No. COA041058 (decision affirming the murder conviction on direct appeal and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on a possible conflict of interest question issued August 2, 2005). (3) State v. Terrence Lowell Hyman, North Carolina Court of Appeals, No. COA06939 (decision affirming the trial court’s order finding no conflict of interest on remand issued April 3, 2007). (4) Terrence Lowell Hyman v. Theodis Beck, et al, United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, No. 5:08-HC-2066-BO (final judgment issuing the writ of habeas corpus entered March 31, 2010). (5) Terrence Lowell Hyman v. Alvin W. Keller, Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 10-6652 (decision staying the appeal pending further state proceedings issued July 21, 2011). (6) State v. Terrence Lowell Hyman, Superior Court, Bertie County, 01 CRS 50423 (order denying the motion for appropriate relief