Whether the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the state court reasonably applied Supreme Court precedents in finding a lack of prejudice when damning forensic testimony was not effectively challenged conflicts with prior Court and circuit decisions

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Joshua Villalobos was convicted largely on the unchallenged testimony of a medical examiner, Dr. Alex Zhang, who concluded that the victim suffered fatal internal injuries during the hours before her death, when Petitioner was alone with her. Dr. Zhang’s testimony was the “linchpin” of the prosecution’s case, as the state habeas court concluded. Despite the damning nature of this testimony, Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to present readily available expert testimony establishing that many of the victim’s injuries, including the fatal ones, were weeks old, and that there was no evidence of new injury in the twenty-four hours before her death. Furthermore, expert evidence would have explained the “cascade” of effects from a much older injury, which were consistent with evidence that the victim had been losing appetite, energy, and a concerning amount of weight over the months preceding her death. The parties agree, and the state court found, that trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to present this available testimony. The question presented to this Court is: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the state court reasonably applied this Court’s precedents in finding a lack of prejudice—in a case where damning forensic testimony could have been but was not effectively with the decisions of this Court and other circuits. i