En Banc, Habeas, AEDPA, Ineffective Assistance
Denial of Habeas for Ineffective Assistance, as state court's findings on defense lawyer's choices might have been made by fair-minded jurists.
State intermediate appeal on the collateral challenge did not inappropriately consider whether it was more likely than not that the verdict/sentence had been affected rather than asking if the error resulted in a reasonable probability of a difference in the outcome. Court's statement that nothing would have changed can be read to imply the reasonable probability standard.
Claim that state applied unconstitutional nexus test for mitigation factors, although not raised here, does not establish that rulings on the initial collateral challenge considered the wrong set of relevant mitigating factors.
Lack of explicit statement that new mitigation was considered on state direct and collateral challenge doesn't mean that it wasn't considered.
State Habeas findings not unreasonable.
Concurrence/Dissent -- Causal nexus error infected ruling on initial collateral challenge. Intermediate appeal used preponderance standard. Error on de novo review of ineffective assistance in mitigation.
Concurrence/Dissent 2 -- De novo review, but no prejudice.
ERIC MANN V. CHARLES RYAN
