Whether the district court erred in granting habeas relief on the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to obtain mental health records of the sole eyewitness

QUESTION PRESENTED When a capital case entirely depends on the testimony of one eyewitness, where there was no physical or forensic evidence to connect the Petitioner to the murder, no relationship between the Petitioner and the victim or the only eyewitness, where the only eyewitness retreated from every aspect of his initial description of the shooter at trial matched the Petitioner, and where the Petitioner was actually innocent, this Court should settle the First Circuit Court of Appeals’s mistaken habeas rulings: The District Court did not err in concluding that the Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that defense counsel would not have used the information in the missing records was unreasonable. The District Court did not err in finding unreasonable the SJC’s conclusions that there was no evidence that suggested Perez’s PTSD or drug use affected his ability to perceive the Petitioner the morning of the shooting. The District Court did not err in finding unreasonable the SJC’s conclusions that the substance contained in the missing records was already presented to the jury. The First Circuit should have affirmed the District Court’s decision allowing habeas relief on the Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to obtain the mental health records of the Commonwealth’s sole percipient witness. 1