Whether the federal court can 'hypothesize' about possible 'tactical choices' trial counsel might have made on the basis of facts that were unreasonably determined by the state courts, in violation of 28 USC § 2254(d)(1)

No question identified. : 4) SUPREME CoutT OF “THE UNITED STATES | 6} | STEPHEN MALIC PICACT, 7 Men TIONER KPPELLAWT . : | MARCUS POLLARD, WARDEN 9 Lest POND EO ~ APPELLEE . 11]. oN PetimieN FoR A WRIT OF CefTiolAtl To THE |. 12 UNITED STATES CoutT OF KPPEALS Fol The NINTH. CHEGHIT . : 15 PETITION FoR A WRIT OF CeRTioL AL oe 18|| STEPVEN HALE PicAtT FGOIBIY ; oe © RACHALO TS DONOVAN CORE CTionKL FACILITY , 19 4YBO ALTA Lord 20. a SAN OIEGO, CALIFORNIA 42419 mo, oad aN ORO SE. | ee 28 . ; oT QUESTION PlesewTeo — 3i] LIN ROPLYNG@ HMONETON V. RicHTEt, S62 US Be | 4||(Zoi), To A HARERS CORPUS CLAM BKSEP ON TRE STE’ 5]] UNLERONA BLE RRPLICATION. OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 6]| STAMORED FoR EFFECTIVE AIVWTANICE OF Coser pf” 7|| Vioktion oF 26 USC £225Y (d) (4), caw The FeoELAL , 811 Cover "HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT POSSIBLE "ZACTICNL Cuorces” | 9]) TRIAL COUNJEL MIGHT HAVE HAVE ON “THE BASIS OF FACTS 10] NHC HAVE Deen vWleKroWABLY DeTetH Ee BY The 7 11] STATE COUETS, 1) VIOLATION OF SuBSection Ga)(2z)?27 | 1s]. a RPP WARING TOW V. RicHTee, SOZUS fo 14 86 (Zou), To A HARES Coteus Chim BASeo ON Tue | 18|| STATES UNRERSON ABLE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 16] STANWOOD FoR EFFECTIVE KISIS TAC OF COUNSEL IN 3 / 47] Mov Tion OF 28 USC $2254 Cd) (4), ch Te Pepctac | . —18)| Coutt “HYPOTHE SIL" MIOVT POSSIBLE “TACTICAL Cuorces” | 19] TRIAL COUNSEL NIGHT HAVE MADE ON Tue GaAtiv Of Facts | 20) Wiaicn Ade, PVEJUANT To CuROWiJion Ce) (4), untetn, seo’ 21] BY CLELAND COM NGG EVIDENCE IN THE STATE 2211 Couka REcoto ? oul! BIN RPPLYING WiGGinS V. SHITH, 539 US. 510, 25|| (2003), To A HABEAS COtPUS CLAIH BASED ON THe STATES 26|| UNGEKSONATBLE MYPLICA TION OF THE CONSTIWTiowa STANOALD 27)| FOR CEFECTIVE AS SISTANLE OF COVNSA IN VIOLATION OF THE . 28l| SIMTH RHENDKHENT To The umiTEn STATES CONSTITUTION, Awo _ 2 aH AN ViotATION oF 28 USC $2254 Cd) (4), Qvestions AtovT |} A DEFENDANT'S HENTAL CONDI TON “To keep IN HIND WHE . 3] Ceviewin4 TRE LECOLD rnctUDE: . : | 4|) * OES THE RECOLD JUGCEST Thar Te DeteNoAMT 5]| SUFEEREO FROH Rk HATOL DVEASE OR DEFECT AT Te TIME OF 6|| THe OFFENSE? IF fo. . 8} @ 1S THEGE AWY fenseon To BeuEVE Twat The OEFEpOANT . O|] WAS INCAQARLE OF UNDERSTAND) G THe wATULE ANO QuURLTY | 10] OF WSO HER ACT og OF bekUiU NG THAT THe ACT was 1] MoRAUY Whon® 2 . al — 12|] Chee Den C6 25 Cb)) M'NACH TeNn's cae (ibys) 10 CAK | 13|| € Fin 200, © ENG Ret 118 mo) PEOPLE V. Sriwwet (1995) | —14|] St CSv 965,167). oe | ee 16) © ® if SO, 910 HE OR SHE ENTER A PLEA oF NOT GUILTY . 17] OF Reason OF INSANITY? See Den C § 1026. iF NoT, WHY WoT? | 19 @ iF DEFENDENT HAD A Coutr TUAL AT THe SANITY 7 20 Ounce, Dio HE OF Sue SEUE, CALY WAIVE TVEY THAL ON THe ° aiff Question OF SéNi TY ? : . . | 93 1f THe CecolO JUEGESTS Thkt THe DEFENDANT WAS 24"UNConSCous” AT The Tine OF THe cereale (Meumwaty 25]] TEAWSCRAPT, PAGE 11, L= 19; PAGE 12, L95 Avo PAGE 12 +21), 01D 26), THE TRIAL COVET INSTRUGr SUA SPONTE ON UNCONSGIOVINESS AL |. o7|| n DekeNJE? See PEW CF 2604); See Alu CALCEIMS 25). 28 . . 2 ; 4, foo, : . . ne |