PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DEREK ELLIOTT TICE,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of No. 09-8245
Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(3:08-cv-00069-RLW)
Argued: September 21, 2010
Decided: April 20, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and
Robert J. CONRAD, Jr., Chief United States District Judge
for the Western District of North Carolina,
sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opin-
ion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Conrad joined.
ARGUED: Stephen R. McCullough, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Vir-
2 TICE v. JOHNSON
ginia, for Appellant. Christopher Todd Handman, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Attorney General of Vir-
ginia, E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., State Solicitor General, Vir-
ginia B. Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charles
E. James, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, Steven T.
Buck, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTOR-
NEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Melissa N. Henke, GEORGETOWN UNIVER-
SITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C.; E. Desmond
Hogan, Thomas J. Widor, Liana G.T. Wolf, HOGAN &
HARTSON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge:
William Bosko, stationed aboard the frigate USS Simpson
following Navy basic training, debarked to the pier in Nor-
folk, Virginia, during the afternoon of July 8, 1997, having
spent the week at sea. Bosko hoped to reunite at the pier with
his bride of three months, Michelle. When Michelle failed to
show up, Bosko supposed that his wife had started her new
job and was unable to meet him as arranged, so he took a taxi-
cab to the apartment they shared.
Bosko called out to Michelle as he entered the apartment,
but he received no response. He looked for a note but found
none. Bosko decided to shower, change clothes, and surprise
Michelle at work. As he strode into the bedroom, Bosko dis-
covered his lifeless wife on the floor, clad only in a black T-
shirt and lying in her own blood. Someone had strangled
Michelle while using a steak knife to stab her several times
in the chest. The police found the bloody knife under a chest
of drawers, the serrated blade bent at nearly a right angle to
its handle.
TICE v. JOHNSON 3
Two weeks earlier, another woman living nearby had been
severely beaten. Ten days after Michelle’s murder and
scarcely more than a mile away, a 14-year-old girl was raped.
On March 22, 2000, Omar Ballard, who was by then serving
a long prison sentence for both of those crimes, pleaded guilty
to the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko. In return for Bal-
lard’s guilty pleas, prosecutors agreed to forgo any attempt to
have him put to death. Ballard had confessed to the Bosko
murder not long after being confronted with a letter he wrote
a female acquaintance from prison:
And one last thing you Remember that night i went
to Mommie’s house and the Next morning Michelle
got killed guess who did that, Me HA, HA. It wasn’t
the first time . . . . if i was out i would have killed
that Bitch down the street from you too.
Upon being forwarded the letter, the police had a forensic lab
compare DNA extracted from Ballard’s blood to that derived
from biological samples taken from Michelle’s vagina and
beneath her fingernails, and from a blanket used to cover her.
In each and every instance, the DNA found at the crime scene
was highly correlative to that of Ballard. For his despicable
acts against Michelle Bosko, Omar Ballard was sentenced to
serve the rest of his life in prison.
I.
This appeal, though inextricably entwined with the Bosko
murder, has almost nothing to do with Omar Ballard. It is
instead an appeal by the Director of the Virginia Department
of Corrections (the "Director") of the district court’s grant of
a writ of habeas corpus to the appellee, Derek Elliot Tice,
who has twice been convicted in the Circuit Court for the City
of Norfolk of raping and murdering Michelle Bosko. The first
time was on February 14, 2000, following a jury trial con-
ducted by Judge Charles E. Poston. That conviction, however,
was overturned by the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which
4 TICE v. JOHNSON
concluded that Tice’s jury had been improperly instructed.
See Tice v. Commonwealth, 563 S.E.2d 412 (Va. Ct. App.
2002).
On January 31, 2003, on retrial before Judge Poston, a dif-
ferent jury found Tice guilty of rape and murder, for which he
was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment. At
this second trial, the Commonwealth built its case on two evi-
dentiary pillars. The first was the eyewitness testimony of
Joseph Dick, who, in 1999, had himself pleaded guilty to
Michelle’s rape and murder. Dick lived with Danial and
Nicole Williams, in an apartment catercornered to that where
the Boskos resided. According to Dick, on the evening before
Michelle’s body was discovered, he was at his apartment with
Danial Williams, Eric Wilson, and four other men whom Dick
hardly knew: Geoffrey Farris, Rick Pauley, John Danser, and
Tice. After listening to Williams speak provocatively about
Michelle, the seven men became excited and knocked on her
door, but she would not let them enter. The group dispersed
to the parking lot, where they encountered Ballard, whom
Michelle had met and trusted. Ballard knocked on Michelle’s
door, and when she opened it, everyone rushed in. Dick testi-
fied that all of the men raped Michelle and then took turns
stabbing her.
The second pillar was Tice’s own signed confession, given
to Detective Robert G. Ford of the Norfolk Police Depart-
ment, on June 25, 1998:
Q. Tell me in your own words what you know in
reference to this offense.
A. Okay. On the night in question Rick Pauley and
myself went over to Daniel [sic] Williams’ apart-
ment planning on going to a bar called the Ban[que].
When we got there Daniel’s [sic] wife, Nicole, was
feeling ill, so we decided to stay there and talk.
Nicole went to bed.
TICE v. JOHNSON 5
The guys, which was Daniel [sic] Williams, Eric
Wilson, Joseph Dick, Jeffrey Farris, Rick Pauley,
and myself, were there talking, and we got onto the
subject of females. We talked about which ones
we’d like to have, if we could. Daniel [sic] Williams
talked about Michelle and wanting her above all
other females.
***
We then sat down and decided what all was going
to be done. I made the statement that if we did this
that we shouldn’t leave her alive.
***
We went over. It was either Eric or Dan with their
thumb over the peep hole of her door. Myself, I
believe it was Dan and Jeff, also knocked on the
door. Because she could not see through the peep
hole she asked who it was. Dan made the statement
that it was himself and some friends, and that we had
come over to talk. She said that she didn’t want to
talk and to leave her alone. I made the statement that
all we wanted to do was to come in and talk. She
refused.
At that time Daniel [sic] Williams left, came back
with a claw hammer. Him and Jeff clawed at the
door. The rest of us pushed our way inside. Dan was
the first one inside, grabbed her around the back of
the head and around the mouth so she couldn’t
scream.
When the rest of us got inside, we disrobed her,
held her down. . . . Dan was the first to have inter-
course with her, I was the second, Eric was third. It
was Jeff, Joe, and then Rick.
6 TICE v. JOHNSON
After that a couple of us had forgotten about the
killing of Michelle as planned. She started to get up.
Jeff and Joe, as well as Dan, proceeded to bring her
on up to standing. Dan started to strangle her, keep
her from talking and to kill her. I made the statement
that she could just pass out and she could still live.
I also made the statement to just get a knife and stab
her.
Jeff went, grabbed the knife from the kitchen —
Q. Do you remember your exact words at that
point?
A. Just go ahead and stab the bitch, I believe is
what I said.
When Jeff came back, he stabbed her. Cupped her
mouth with his hand so she could not scream, then
Dan stabbed her, I stabbed her, then Eric stabbed
her, Joe stabbed her, and Rick Pauley also stabbed
her.
***
Q. Did Michelle Bosko fight the entire time?
A. Yes, sir, she did put up a struggle the whole
time.
Q. Was she pleading with you all to leave her
alone?
A. We could not tell, because the whole time she
was kept from saying anything by hands being put
over her mouth, but I could see in her eyes that she
was pleading for help.
TICE v. JOHNSON 7
***
Q. You were the second to rape her; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ejaculate?
A. Yes, sir.
***
Q. And before the six of you went to this house
you had decided that you were going to rape and kill
Michelle Bosko; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
J.A. 600-08.1 Tice’s graphic and poignant account of what
occurred in Michelle’s apartment could not fail to resonate
with any jury, but his recitation contains three incontrovert-
ible errors or omissions of fact. First, there was no evidence
of forced entry into the premises, whether from marks made
by a claw hammer or otherwise. Second, although Tice said
that he ejaculated, the only DNA evidence found at the crime
scene was linked to Omar Ballard; Tice and his alleged con-
federates were all flatly ruled out as donors of the tested sam-
ples. Third, Ballard undeniably raped Michelle, but one will
search in vain to find Ballard’s name or any reference to him
anywhere in Tice’s confession.
In his questions to Detective Ford concerning Tice’s con-
fession and again during closing argument, defense counsel
James Broccoletti aimed skillful jabs at his client’s affirma-
tive misstatements. But it was during his cross-examination of
1
Citations herein to "J.A. ___" refer to the contents of the Joint Appen-
dix filed by the parties to this appeal.
8 TICE v. JOHNSON
Joseph Dick that Mr. Broccoletti landed several haymakers.
Dick had concluded his testimony on direct examination by
averring that no one had promised him anything in exchange
for his testimony, but counsel effectively impeached that
assertion by confronting Dick with his plea agreement. The
agreement permitted Dick to plead guilty to first-degree mur-
der and thereby avoid trial on the initial charge of capital mur-
der; in return, Dick was required to "cooperate fully in the
ongoing investigation into the murder of Michelle Moore
Bosko, and to testify truthfully against any codefendants if
needed." J.A. 218.
Mr. Broccoletti then embarked on a lengthy review of
Dick’s evolving story, starting with his statements to the
police on January 12, 1998. During his first several hours in
custody, Dick denied any involvement, but he eventually told
the detectives that he accompanied Williams to the apartment
and that he watched while Williams raped Michelle. About an
hour later, after Detective Ford predicted aloud that the DNA
evidence would prove that Dick was more directly involved,
the latter conformed his account to say that the confrontation
had begun as a consensual encounter, that he had also pene-
trated Michelle and ejaculated in her mouth, and that he had
snatched the knife from Michelle and stabbed her after she
had tried to attack Williams. Dick recounted that the stabbing
had begun in the living room, but that he could not recall
whether it had ended there or somewhere else in the apart-
ment.
About three months later, on April 27, 1998, the police
again interrogated Dick upon the lab’s confirmation that his
DNA was not found at the crime scene. This time, Dick
named Wilson as an additional culprit and said that Williams
alone stabbed Michelle. Then, on June 16, 1998, after no
match had been found to Wilson’s DNA, Dick told the police
that six people had joined together to attack Michelle, includ-
ing one named "George Clark," whom Dick later identified as
Tice. At that time, Dick maintained that the group had put
TICE v. JOHNSON 9
Michelle’s body in a blanket, but he admitted to Mr. Brocco-
letti on cross-examination that he had not been truthful as to
that detail. Dick also acknowledged the various fabrications in
his earlier stories, and he confirmed that he had lied under
oath at Tice’s preliminary hearing by withholding testimony
placing Omar Ballard at the apartment.
Finally, Mr. Broccoletti questioned Dick concerning a letter
Dick had written in 2000 or 2001, responding to an inquiry
from Paul Dowling, a television producer:
Q. Did you say I want to make it very clear, and
you underlined "make it very clear" to you that I did
not participate in the rape and murder of Michelle
Moore Bosko?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. "When I gave my statement, I was very con-
fused and pressured by the police to admit to the
rape."
A. That’s right.
Q. "I told police what they wanted to know, so I
could get them off my back."
A. Yes.
Q. "I told the police that everyone raped Ms.
Bosko, when, in fact, they did not rape her."
A. That’s correct.
Q. "I told the police everything they wanted to
hear."
A. (NO RESPONSE)
10 TICE v. JOHNSON
Q. Sir?
A. Yes.
Q. "I told the police that everyone stabbed Ms.
Bosko, when, in fact, that did not happen, either."
A. Yes.
***
Q. And in that letter you told Mr. Dowling that two
people had committed the murder, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Dowling wrote back to you and asked
you who those two people were?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wrote back to Mr. Dowling shortly
thereafter, correct?
A. Yes.
***
Q. In that letter to Mr. Dowling you said I will tell
you the names of the two defendants. The names of
the two defendants are Richard Pauley and Jeffrey
[sic] Farris.
A. Yes.
***
Q. Is it true there were only two?
TICE v. JOHNSON 11
A. No.
Q. As recently as Sunday night, Mr. Dick, you said
you weren’t there, didn’t you?
A. That’s true.
Q. Two days ago.
J.A. 254-59. Pauley and Farris, as well as Danser, were
charged with the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko, but they
were never prosecuted and the charges were eventually
dropped. None of them ever confessed to the crimes. Wil-
liams, Dick, Wilson, and Tice, by contrast, each gave Detec-
tive Ford signed confessions, and this group, which became
known as the "Norfolk Four," suffered the opposite fate: Wil-
liams and Dick each pleaded guilty in 1999 to murder and
rape; that same year, Wilson was tried and convicted of rape
but found not guilty of murder; and Tice, as noted, was twice
convicted by a jury of both charges.
The investigatory process that culminated in 2000 with Bal-
lard’s conviction was characterized by grim repetition. The
police first targeted Williams, who, after spending the night
at the police station being interrogated, confessed to raping
and killing Michelle by himself. About five months later, after
the forensics lab ruled out Williams as the donor of the crime
scene DNA, the police obtained their first confession from
Dick, who later implicated Wilson once it was determined
that no physical evidence linked Dick to the crimes. Only
after Wilson was likewise eliminated as a donor did Detective
Ford extract the information from Dick that led to Tice’s
arrest. And although Tice at one point augmented his identifi-
cation of Pauley, Farris, and Danser by telling the police that
an unknown, muscular black male 5′9″ to 5′10″ had also been
involved, Omar Ballard, who fit that general description, was
never a suspect until he wrote the letter from jail incriminat-
ing himself.
12 TICE v. JOHNSON
Ballard was called to testify at Tice’s second trial and asked
point blank whether he had raped Michelle. Even though the
court reassured Ballard that his testimony could not lead to
further punishment, he repeatedly refused to answer that ques-
tion or any other. Faced with Ballard’s continued intransi-
gence, the court held him in contempt and returned him to
custody. Detective David M. Peterson nonetheless read the
jury a pair of Ballard’s statements wherein he freely admitted
that he alone took Michelle’s life. Ballard was more reticent
in acknowledging the rape, but eventually did so after initially
maintaining that Michelle had consented to intercourse:
Q. [by Detective Ford] Have you ever had sex with
Michelle Bosko before?
A. Yes, one time.
Q. Where at?
A. In her apartment.
Q. And, who was in the apartment then?
A. Just me and her.
Q. [by Detective Peterson] How long before this
offense did you have sex with her?
A. About a month.
Q. [by Detective Ford] Is there anything you wish
to add to this statement?
A. No, just them four people that opened their
mouths is stupid.
J.A. 472. The remainder of Tice’s defense concerned itself
primarily with establishing that the crime scene DNA was
TICE v. JOHNSON 13
associated with Ballard and no one else, and that the police
investigation had inaccurately focused upon other suspects,
specifically Pauley and Danser.
During closing argument, counsel for the Commonwealth
adverted to Joseph Dick’s testimony on at least two occasions
(comprising about four to five pages of the transcript), urging
the jury to accept it as true notwithstanding the inconsisten-
cies in his myriad recitations. Counsel indicated to the jurors
that, in order for them to believe the defense’s theory that
Omar Ballard acted alone, "you’d have to discount [Dick’s]
testimony entirely." Transcript of Trial, Jan. 29, 2003, at 170.
The prosecution spent rather more time and energy emphasiz-
ing Tice’s confession:
What it comes down to in this case, ladies and gen-
tlemen, is the confession given by the Defendant.
Ladies and gentlemen, people confess because they
are guilty. They want to get something off their
chest. That’s as simple as that, that’s a perfectly rea-
sonable explanation why somebody confesses.
***
People just do not confess, particularly, to something
of this magnitude, this heinous, this vicious, without
having participated in it. It’s just not natural, it’s just
not reasonable. People just don’t do this, ladies and
gentlemen.
***
[F]or somebody to confess to a crime that the
defense alleged in their opening that he didn’t com-
mit is just not reasonable. . . . No, ladies and gentle-
men, he confessed because he thought he did it,
because he knew he had done it. That’s why he told
them that he did it. . . . [Y]ou have no reason put
14 TICE v. JOHNSON
before you from this trial that this man was going to
confess to this, other than the fact that he did it . . .
he gave his statement.
***
[L]adies and gentlemen, if you don’t believe that
Omar Ballard did this by himself, then you have to
believe that the Defendant was there, and his confes-
sion tells you that he was there. There’s no other rea-
sonable conclusion to reach in this case, you can’t
disregard his confession.
Id. at 172-80. The closing arguments began after lunch, and,
after they concluded, the jury was instructed and then retired
to deliberate for the rest of the afternoon, the entire next day,
and for a short while the day after that. At 3:25 p.m. on the
second day, the jurors sent a note to Judge Poston:
THE COURT: Come on up here. Okay. The Jury
has sent this question: Is the signed confession of
Derek Tice direct or circumstantial evidence, or con-
sidered some other kind of evidence. This is in refer-
ence to instruction 12.
And the answer to that is [] both circumstantial evi-
dence and direct evidence are competent methods of
proof. You should assign such weight to the evi-
dence, whether circumstantial or direct, as you deem
appropriate.
Transcript of Trial, Jan. 30, 2003, at 3. Upon receiving the
court’s answer, the jury deliberated for about another two and
one-half hours before declaring its verdict that Tice was guilty
of rape and murder. A three-judge panel of the Court of
Appeals of Virginia affirmed Tice’s convictions on December
23, 2003, and, on July 6, 2004, the Supreme Court of Virginia
entered an order declining to hear his appeal.
TICE v. JOHNSON 15
II.
A.
On September 14, 2005, Tice filed a petition in the trial
court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Virginia law.
The matter was assigned to Judge Everett A. Martin, Jr., who
considered the petition’s various claims that: (1) the Com-
monwealth had frustrated due process by, among other things,
improperly influencing Ballard to remain silent; (2) Judge
Poston had erroneously excluded evidence favorable to the
defense that bore on the probative value of the confession;
and (3) Tice had been ineffectively assisted by counsel at both
the trial and appellate stages. By Order entered April 4, 2006,
Judge Martin rejected several of Tice’s asserted bases for
relief, particularly those relating to the trial court’s evidenti-
ary rulings, leaving the remainder of the claims to be adjudi-
cated following a two-day hearing, beginning on September
11, 2006.
The first witness at the hearing was Omar Ballard, and
counsel got right to the point:
Q. Mr. Ballard, you’re currently serving two life
sentences for the rape and murder of Michelle
Moore-Bosko, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Ballard, did you, in fact, murder Ms.
Moore-Bosko?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you murder her?
A. In an apartment at Bayshore Gardens in Nor-
folk, Virginia.
16 TICE v. JOHNSON
Q. Mr. Ballard, was anyone else involved in the
crime against Moore-Bosko?
[COUNSEL FOR COMMONWEALTH OBJECTS
AND IS OVERRULED]
Q. Let me ask the question again. Was anyone with
you the night that you killed Ms. Moore-Bosko?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Ballard, was Danial Williams involved in
this crime?
A. No.
Q. Was Joseph Dick involved in this crime?
A. No.
Q. Was Eric Wilson involved in this crime?
A. No.
Q. Was Derek Tice involved in this crime?
A. No.
J.A. 843-44. Ballard recalled meeting with the Norfolk detec-
tives on March 7, 1999, and again on March 14, 1999, testify-
ing that he told the police on both occasions that he had acted
alone. Ballard maintained that he was constrained to change
his story, however, when it came time to negotiate his plea
agreement:
Q. Before you actually pled guilty, did you meet
with the detectives to discuss your plea?
TICE v. JOHNSON 17
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you meet with?
A. Detective[] Ford and Detective Peterson.
***
Q. Mr. Ballard, tell me what happened when you
were brought to the Norfolk Police Operations Cen-
ter on that day, starting from the beginning.
A. All right. Well, I was brought into a little inter-
rogation room where I was informed that in order for
me to get a plea agreement or have it accepted, I will
have to tell the truth. That’s supposed to have been
a condition of my plea agreement.
So Detective Ford at the time asked me what the
truth was. So I told him the truth was what I was
saying all along, that I did it all alone. Nobody else
was with me. And then he laughed and told me I’d
never be able to receive my plea agreement if I keep
on lying.
After which he ran a story down to me about me
supposedly meeting the other defendants in the park-
ing lot at a party at the complex that Michelle lived
at asking for a cigarette. And then I supposed to have
led them to her apartment where we supposedly took
turns raping and killing.
Q. What do you mean by ran down the story. "He
ran down the story?" What do you mean by that?
A. He basically told me a version of the story that
I never heard of before.
18 TICE v. JOHNSON
***
Q. What happened after he told you this story?
A. Well, he left the room for about two or three
minutes. Came back. Asked me was I ready to tell
the truth. So I told him, yeah. So he asked me what
the truth was. I told him the same thing before like
I been saying the whole time, that I did it myself.
Then he said, "Well, I guess you don’t want your
plea agreement."
So I felt at the time the only way I could escape
the death penalty was to reiterate what he was telling
me, which was me meeting the guys at the parking
lot.
Q. And did you do that?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that statement true?
A. No.
Id. at 849-51.
The plea negotiations of which Ballard spoke took place
about five weeks after he was called to testify at Tice’s first
trial. There, Ballard steadfastly denied having anything to do
with the Bosko crimes. Confronted with the pair of inconsis-
tent statements he made in March 1999, Ballard told the jury
that he had lied to the police but did so because he was not
then under oath. Ballard’s willing (though false) testimony at
the first trial stood in stark contrast to his adamant refusal to
testify at the second; he attributed his silence in part to a
prison visit from Detective Ford:
TICE v. JOHNSON 19
Q. So now that we have the scene, why don’t you
tell me what happened during this visit of Detective
Ford and the other detective.
A. Well, Ford, as I entered the room, you know,
we made small talk. He asked me how I was doing.
He told me I was going to be called as a witness in
Derek Tice’s trial. So he then asked me how I was
going to testify.
Q. He did ask you how you were going to testify?
A. Yes. Before I can express myself, articulate the
way I was going to testify, he said, "Well, we know
that the people that’s incarcerated for this crime are
the ones that are indeed guilty, and we don’t want
you to go up there and say nothing that will have
anybody guilty being released from prison. So if you
have nothing to say, just tell them you have nothing
to say." And that’s basically the extent of the visit.
Id. at 854-55.2
The parties devoted much of the hearing to exploring the
circumstances of Tice’s confession. After initially waiving his
rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),
Tice was interrogated by Detective Ford and his associate,
Detective Brian Wray, for about an hour. Tice then agreed to
undergo a polygraph examination, which was administered by
Detective Randy Crank. At the conclusion of the three-hour
2
On October 27, 2010, Detective Ford was found guilty by a federal
jury of two counts of extortion and a single count of lying to the FBI,
stemming in part from his acceptance of tens of thousands of dollars from
accused criminals in return for leniency in bail terms and in sentencing.
See Tim McGlone, Former Norfolk detective convicted of extortion, Pilo-
tOnline.com (October 28, 2010), http://dev.hamptonroads.com/2010/10/
former-norfolk-detective-guilty-2-extortion-charges.
20 TICE v. JOHNSON
examination, Tice spoke further with Detective Crank, who
took written notes of the exchange:
I asked him who knocked on the door, said he didn’t
remember. He asked me if he could have some time
to think about it, if he decide[d] to tell me could he
talk to me and Wray, that he did [not] care for the
other guy. He told me he decide[d] not to say any
more, that he might decide to after he talks with a
lawyer, or spends some time alone thinking about it.
I told him he would be given time to think about it.
He did not request a lawyer.
J.A. 614 (emphasis in original). Detective Ford testified that,
until a couple of weeks prior to the habeas hearing, he had
neither seen Detective Crank’s notes nor been apprised of the
conversation memorialized therein. Ford resumed his ques-
tioning of Tice thirteen minutes after Crank had finished,
without reciting fresh Miranda warnings. Within half an hour
of the resumption, Tice admitted to having taken part in the
crimes against Michelle. Four hours later, the detectives had
Tice’s signed confession.
Judge Martin also heard testimony from Mr. Broccoletti
concerning the latter’s representation of Tice:
Q. What was your defense to the charges at
Derek’s first trial?
A. The defense was that the confession was false.
In addition to that, that Mr. Dick was not a credible
witness because of his plea agreement, because of
his inconsistent statements, because of his demeanor
and attitude on the witness stand.
The defense was that Mr. Ballard, through both
the physical evidence and the scientific evidence,
was the sole perpetrator, that the physical evidence
TICE v. JOHNSON 21
that was recovered at the scene pointed exclusively
to one individual and one individual only, and that
would be Mr. Ballard.
***
Q. And the theory of your defense at the second
trial was the same as it was at the first trial?
A. Correct.
***
Q. Did you consider filing a motion to suppress
[the confession] based on Miranda grounds?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss with Derek whether he
had invoked his Miranda rights?
A. Yes.
***
Q. This is a fax cover sheet . . . and on the second
page, police notes. Do you recognize these notes?
A. I recognize them now, yes.
Q. When is the first time you saw these notes?
A. I can’t tell you that. I don’t know.
Q. Do you recall seeing these notes while you were
representing Derek Tice?
A. I have real questions about whether I recalled
seeing these notes until you showed me this morning
22 TICE v. JOHNSON
my yellow sheet of paper, which had my assistant’s
handwriting on it. So obviously I had the notes
because it came — it must have come from my file
because that’s her handwriting. I recognize that.
***
Q. [W]ere these notes in your file while you were
representing Derek Tice?
A. They must have been. So if they were there, I’m
sure that I reviewed them and I’m sure I saw it, but
I can’t tell you today when I saw it or specifically at
what point in these matters.
Id. at 904-09. Jeffrey R. Russell, who had been co-counsel
with Mr. Broccoletti throughout both trials, testified that he
did not recall having seen the notes until shown them in
advance of the habeas hearing. Russell volunteered, however,
that any discussion of filing a motion to suppress would have
been inspired by "the coercion and voluntariness issues that
were a concern with Detective Ford," and not any Miranda
grounds relating to the invocation of Tice’s rights to remain
silent or to representation by an attorney. Id. at 950.
By his letter opinion dated November 27, 2006, Judge Mar-
tin ruled that Ballard had decided on his own not to testify and
that Tice’s counsel had not been constitutionally ineffective
with respect to several trial decisions that ultimately made no
difference. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691
(1984) ("An error by counsel, even if professionally unreason-
able, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal
proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment." (cita-
tion omitted)). With especial regard to the confession, Judge
Martin concluded that a motion to suppress on the grounds of
involuntariness or of invocation of the right to counsel would
probably have failed on the facts, with the result that Tice suf-
TICE v. JOHNSON 23
fered no prejudice by his counsel’s allegedly deficient perfor-
mance in failing to so move.
Judge Martin devoted the lion’s share of his opinion, how-
ever, to discussing the petition’s claim that Tice’s counsel had
been ineffective by failing to move to suppress the confession
on the additional ground that Tice had invoked his right to
answer no further questions. Judge Martin evaluated Tice’s
statement that "he decide[d] not to say any more" in the con-
text of the applicable law:
When a defendant has received a Miranda warn-
ing and waived his right to remain silent, as the peti-
tioner did, the waiver will be presumed to continue
throughout the interrogation until the defendant
"manifests in some way which would be apparent to
a reasonable person his desire to revoke it." . . . In
dictum [in Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 250 Va. 262,
268 (1995)] the Court held the statement "I do not
want to answer any more questions" would suffice.
I have found five cases in which the Supreme Court
of Virginia has ruled on the invocation of the right
to silence. In three of those cases, in which the
Supreme Court held the statements were equivocal,
the statements were significantly different from the
petitioner’s. In Burket v. Commonwealth, 248 Va.
596, 610 (1994), the Court held the statements "I just
don’t think I should say anything because" and "I
need somebody that I can talk to" were equivocal. In
Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 470 (1994),
the Court without discussion held "[d]o not want to
discuss case any further" invoked the right to the
silence. The statement here falls between those in
Burket and Weeks, but it is closer to Weeks.
***
I find the first part of petitioner’s statement (when
put in the first person) "I’ve decided not to say any
24 TICE v. JOHNSON
more" was unambiguous and unequivocal. The sec-
ond part of the statement "I might decide to say more
after I talk to a lawyer or spend some time alone
thinking about it" did not render the entire statement
ambiguous or equivocal. It merely indicated he
might be willing to speak at a later time.
The subsequent interrogation of the petitioner
after he invoked his right to silence was not "scrupu-
lously honored" under Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S.
96 (1975) and Weeks, supra. . . . Based upon the evi-
dence, I believe a motion to suppress the petitioner’s
confession would probably have been granted on this
ground.
Tice v. Johnson, No. CL05-2067, slip op. at 5-7 (Va. Cir. Ct.
Nov. 27, 2006) (the "Circuit Court Habeas Opinion") (cita-
tions omitted).3 Judge Martin acknowledged that Mr. Brocco-
letti and Mr. Russell "are highly respected and most capable,"
id. at 7, but nonetheless determined that, as to this single
aspect of the trial, their performance was deficient within the
meaning of Strickland. And, according to Judge Martin, coun-
sel’s lapse might well have made a critical difference in the
jury room:
The evidence against the petitioner at his second trial
was his confession, co-defendant Dick’s testimony,
and the physical evidence (which both corroborated
and contradicted petitioner’s confession). There was
no fingerprint, DNA, or other scientific evidence
against him; no independent eyewitnesses implicated
him; no physical evidence directly implicated him.
False confessions do occur, but most people
believe (and rightly so) that a person does not usu-
ally confess his involvement in a murder unless he
3
The Circuit Court Habeas Opinion is found at J.A. 1072-81.
TICE v. JOHNSON 25
is guilty. There is probably no stronger evidence
against a criminal defendant in the eyes of a jury
than his confession. . . . Reading only a transcript I
cannot say how effective a witness Dick was, but
Mr. Broccoletti’s cross-examination of him seems
quite damaging. I find there is a reasonable probabil-
ity the jury would have acquitted the petitioner if his
confession had not been admitted into evidence.
Id. at 8-9. By Final Order entered December 20, 2006, Judge
Martin delivered the circuit court’s judgment "that counsel
were ineffective and that the petitioner was prejudiced by his
counsel’s deficient performance, satisfying both the perfor-
mance and prejudice prongs of Strickland, and thus the Court
GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on that por-
tion of [the claim]." Tice v. Johnson, No. CL05-2067, Final
Order at 2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 20, 2006).
B.
On appeal by the Director, the Supreme Court of Virginia
left intact Judge Martin’s rulings that Tice had unambiguously
invoked his constitutional right to stop answering questions,
and that Tice’s confession obtained thereafter would have
been suppressed from trial had such a motion been made. The
court also assumed that Tice’s lawyers had performed in an
objectively unreasonable fashion by failing to so move. Nev-
ertheless, the court unanimously reversed Judge Martin’s
grant of the writ because, in its view, Tice had not shown suf-
ficient prejudice to establish that the jury’s verdict would
have been different had counsel not erred. The court’s conclu-
sion rested substantially on its assessment of the strength of
Dick’s testimony:
[W]e note that Dick admitted at trial that he had not
told the truth to the police regarding several details
of the crimes. Those details included the room in
which the crimes occurred, the question whether
26 TICE v. JOHNSON
Michelle performed oral sodomy on Tice and Wil-
liams, and the issue whether Michelle had gained
control of the knife and threatened Williams. How-
ever, despite these and other inaccuracies in his ear-
lier statements to the police, Dick was consistent in
his sworn testimony implicating himself and Tice in
the rapes and murder of Michelle, and did not
change or retract any aspect of that testimony on
cross-examination by Tice’s trial counsel.
We also observe that Tice’s counsel failed to present
any evidence showing that Dick had a motive to fab-
ricate his testimony concerning Tice’s role in the
crimes. When Dick gave his testimony at Tice’s trial,
Dick was serving two sentences of life imprisonment
for his crimes against Michelle and was not subject
to any additional penalties for those crimes. . . .
Th[e] evidence established that Dick and Tice did
not have a prior relationship that could support a
charge that Dick disliked Tice or was otherwise
biased against him. Thus, this evidence additionally
supported the credibility of Dick’s testimony about
Tice’s participation in the crimes.
Tice’s defense at trial was based on the theory that
Ballard alone committed the offenses against
Michelle. Tamika Taylor’s testimony undermined
this theory. Her testimony revealed that Williams
had an apparent obsession with Michelle, providing
a link to the crimes perpetrated by the group that
included Williams, Tice, and Dick. . . . Taylor’s tes-
timony also established that Ballard and Michelle
were friends, and that Ballard frequently visited
Michelle in her apartment. This testimony helped
explain Ballard’s statement to Detective Peterson
that Michelle opened her apartment door to the
group that included Ballard, when she earlier had
refused entry to the original group.
TICE v. JOHNSON 27
In addition to the above testimony, the jury also
received evidence concerning DNA samples recov-
ered from Michelle’s body and from a blanket found
on the bed at the crime scene. Forensic scientists
Robert Scanlon and Jerry Sellers both testified that
intercourse can occur during a rape without DNA
material being deposited in a victim’s vagina, pro-
vided that the perpetrator did not ejaculate. Scanlon
further explained a perpetrator would not usually
leave epithelial cells containing DNA as a result of
sexual intercourse. . . . This expert testimony, there-
fore, provided an explanation with regard to how
several men could have raped Michelle with only
one man, Ballard, having deposited bodily fluids
from which DNA samples could be extracted.
We also observe that Tice presented evidence show-
ing that John Danser and Richard Pauley, who were
part of the group that Dick implicated in committing
these crimes, had produced alibi evidence concern-
ing their activities on the night Michelle was mur-
dered. This evidence, however, did not relate to
Tice’s activities on the date of the offense and, there-
fore, was of questionable relevance to the issue
whether Tice participated in committing the crimes
against Michelle.
With these considerations in mind, and having
reviewed all the evidence presented at Tice’s crimi-
nal trial with the exception of his confession, we
conclude that the circuit court erred in holding that
Tice satisfied his evidentiary burden under Strick-
land. We hold, as a matter of law, that Tice failed to
meet his burden of proving the prejudice prong of
Strickland, namely, that there was a reasonable prob-
ability of a different result at his criminal trial if the
jury had not considered his confession. In short, the
28 TICE v. JOHNSON
record before us does not undermine confidence in
the outcome of the proceedings.
Johnson v. Tice, 654 S.E.2d 917, 924-25 (Va. 2008). In con-
junction with its reversal of the lower court’s judgment on
Tice’s primary claim, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed
Judge Martin’s rulings denying relief on two other claims pre-
served on cross-appeal, and it dismissed the petition in its
entirety.
C.
Having exhausted his postconviction remedies under Vir-
ginia law, Tice filed an application for federal habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) in the Eastern District
of Virginia on January 28, 2008. The district court dismissed
the two claims that Virginia’s highest court had resolved simi-
larly on cross-appeal, but granted the writ on the same ground
identified by Judge Martin, namely, that Broccoletti’s and
Russell’s failure to move to exclude Tice’s confession as hav-
ing been obtained in contravention of his right to remain silent
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. See Tice v. John-
son, No. 3:08-cv-00069, slip op. at 12-17, 40-41 (E.D. Va.
Sept. 14, 2009) (the "District Court Opinion").4 On the ques-
tion of whether the confession would have been excluded
from trial had the potential Miranda violation been brought to
Judge Poston’s attention, the district court agreed with Judge
Martin’s analysis, observing that "the Circuit Court’s predic-
tion . . . is persuasive . . . . [T]he Court finds that, had counsel
filed a motion to suppress Tice’s confession based on the fail-
ure to honor Tice’s invocation of this right to remain silent,
the motion would have been granted." Id. at 19-20 (citations
omitted).
The district court also concurred with Judge Martin’s eval-
uation of Strickland’s performance prong, opining that "any
4
The District Court Opinion is found at J.A. 1124-64.
TICE v. JOHNSON 29
reasonable investigation . . . would have involved reviewing
Detective Crank’s notes of his conversations with Tice." Dis-
trict Court Opinion 27 (citations omitted). The court ascer-
tained that counsel either overlooked the notes entirely, or at
least did not fully appreciate their significance, and therefore
the defense was "deficient for failing to file a motion to sup-
press Tice’s confession." Id. at 28. With respect to the preju-
dice prong of Strickland, the district court concluded, in
disagreement with the Supreme Court of Virginia, that "Tice’s
. . . confession provided compelling evidence of his guilt.
With the exclusion of that evidence, the prosecution’s case
against Tice would be left awash in doubt." Id. at 40. The dis-
trict court thus determined to grant habeas relief, but
requested additional briefing as to its precise form.
The court’s uncertainty was occasioned by an act of the
Governor of Virginia, Timothy M. Kaine, who, on August 6,
2009, during the pendency of the federal habeas proceeding,
granted conditional pardons to Tice and two other members
of the Norfolk Four (Williams and Dick) who yet remained in
prison. Tice was released from custody the next day.
On November 19, 2009, having received and considered
the post-opinion briefs, the district court entered its Final
Order specifying that "[t]he writ of habeas corpus will be
granted if the Commonwealth of Virginia does not commence
the retrial of Tice . . . within 120 days after the final resolution
of any appeal (including a petition for a writ of certiorari) if
an appeal is taken." Tice v. Johnson, No. 3:08-cv-00069, Final
Order (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2009).5 By timely Notice filed
5
An accused whose conviction is overturned on collateral review may
ordinarily be retried within a reasonable time after the judgment granting
relief becomes final. See United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 466 (1964);
Yaeger v. Dir., Dep’t of Welfare & Insts., 319 F.2d 771, 772 (4th Cir.
1963). Retrial is barred, however, if a habeas court "determine[s] that the
evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the verdict." Greene
v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 24 (1978). No such determination was made by
the district court in Tice’s case.
30 TICE v. JOHNSON
December 18, 2009, the Director indeed took appeal to this
Court, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1291 and 2253.
III.
Section 2254 of Title 28 of the United States Code autho-
rizes the federal courts, upon application, to issue a writ of
habeas corpus compelling the release of a person imprisoned
pursuant to state law "on the ground that [the prisoner] is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Tice no longer contends
that he is entitled to relief on the alternative bases set forth in
his habeas application and dismissed by the district court;
hence, the sole issue on appeal is whether the court correctly
decided that Tice was deprived on retrial of the assistance of
counsel to the minimum degree of effectiveness contemplated
by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. See Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) ("[T]he Court has
recognized that ‘the right to counsel is the right to the effec-
tive assistance of counsel.’" (quoting McMann v. Richardson,
397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14 (1970))).6
A.
Strickland announced a two-prong test to analyze a Sixth
Amendment claim of ineffectiveness. A defendant seeking
postconviction relief must demonstrate both that counsel’s
performance was deficient, and that the defense was thereby
prejudiced. See 466 U.S. at 687. Lawyers who represent crim-
inal defendants are accorded considerable latitude with
respect to proper strategy; as a result, counsel’s performance
6
Strickland thus reinforced the proposition that a criminal defendant’s
entitlement to effective legal representation is implicit in the Sixth Amend-
ment, the bare text of which provides, in pertinent part: "In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance
of Counsel for his defence." U.S. Const. amend. VI.
TICE v. JOHNSON 31
will not be deemed deficient except in those relatively rare sit-
uations where, "in light of all the circumstances, the identified
acts or omissions were outside the wide range of profession-
ally competent assistance." Id. at 690. A criminal defense
attorney routinely faces thorny tactical decisions that may
heavily bear on the defendant’s life or liberty. Lacking com-
plete, verifiable information, the lawyer must often make
those decisions based on educated surmise and conjecture.
For that reason, a court asked to engage in detached, dispas-
sionate, after-the-fact review "must indulge a strong presump-
tion" that counsel’s decisions were within the broad spectrum
of reasonableness. Id. at 689.
Even if the defendant manages to rebut the presumption
and establish that counsel performed unreasonably, the result
of the proceeding will stand "if the error had no effect on the
judgment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 (citation omitted). The
defendant must prove more than "some conceivable effect,"
but need not demonstrate that counsel’s deficiency "more
likely than not altered the outcome in the case." Id. at 693.
Instead, it must be shown "that there is a reasonable probabil-
ity that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable prob-
ability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in
the outcome." Id. at 694.
1.
We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant
habeas relief. See Bauberger v. Haynes, 632 F.3d 100, 103
(4th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Our analysis of Tice’s
claim and its disposition by the Supreme Court of Virginia is
tempered by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Because the asserted ground for
relief centers on the application of the law to undisputed facts,
and not upon the facts themselves, we may grant the writ only
insofar as the state’s adjudication "resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
32 TICE v. JOHNSON
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).7
The rule and analytical framework announced by the
Supreme Court in Strickland "unquestionably qualifies as
‘clearly established’ federal law under § 2254(d)." Frazer v.
South Carolina, 430 F.3d 696, 703 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000)). Be that as it
may, the Supreme Court of Virginia’s application of Strick-
land is entitled to considerable deference. It is not enough for
us to say that, confronted with the same facts, we would have
applied the law differently; we can accord Tice a remedy only
by concluding that the state court’s application of the law in
his case was objectively unreasonable. See Williams v.
Ozmint, 494 F.3d 478, 483-84 (4th Cir. 2007).
At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, our perception
7
Disputes of fact, by contrast, invoke the succeeding subparagraph of
§ 2254(d). That subparagraph proscribes a grant of the federal writ unless
the adjudication by the state court "resulted in a decision that was based
on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence pre-
sented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
During the pendency of this appeal, on April 4, 2011, the Supreme
Court of the United States issued its opinion in Cullen v. Pinholster, No.
09-1088, 563 U.S. ____ (2011). On certiorari to the Ninth Circuit, the
Court proclaimed, inter alia, that "review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to
the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the
merits." Cullen, slip op. at 9. The Supreme Court concluded that the court
of appeals had therefore erred by considering new evidence presented to
the district court in aid of the petitioner’s Strickland claim for federal
habeas relief. See Cullen, slip op. at 14. Confining its review to the state-
court record, the Court determined that the California Supreme Court had
not unreasonably applied Strickland, and it reversed the Ninth Circuit’s
judgment taking the contrary view. Cullen, slip op. at 31. Although Tice’s
claim is also one premised upon Strickland, and it, too, entails review
under § 2254(d)(1), Cullen does not inform our judgment inasmuch as the
district court here took no additional evidence, deciding the claim based
exclusively upon the record before the Supreme Court of Virginia. In
announcing our decision today, we rely upon that same record.
TICE v. JOHNSON 33
of how reasonably another court applies the law in a particular
case is best informed by conducting our own, independent
application so that we may gauge how the two compare. We
shall therefore analyze, under Strickland’s first prong,
whether counsel performed short of constitutional expecta-
tions by not moving to suppress Tice’s confession. If we
resolve that question in the affirmative, we shall proceed to
consider whether Tice must nevertheless be denied habeas
relief under Strickland’s second prong, in that he suffered no
cognizable prejudice either because the confession would not
have been suppressed or because he would have been con-
victed in any event.
2.
Our method of analysis diverges in one subtle respect from
that employed by the other courts which have considered
Tice’s claim. The state habeas court and the district court each
made the threshold determination that a motion to suppress
would have been granted, and only then decided whether
counsel’s failure to so move constituted deficient perfor-
mance, moving on finally to determine whether counsel’s
deficiency resulted in unacceptable prejudice to Tice. The
Supreme Court of Virginia, which relied solely on Strick-
land’s prejudice prong to evaluate Tice’s case, assumed from
the outset that counsel performed deficiently, and, perhaps as
part of that assumption, took for granted that the confession
would have been suppressed.
Mindful of Justice O’Connor’s admonition on behalf of the
Court in Strickland that "fair assessment of attorney perfor-
mance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the dis-
torting effects of hindsight," 466 U.S. at 689, we think the
more prudent course is to omit from our review of counsel’s
performance in this case any supposed disposition of the
hypothetical motion to suppress. Of course, as a general prop-
osition, the likelihood of success appropriately bears on the
decision to take a particular act in litigation. It is enough to
34 TICE v. JOHNSON
say for purposes of measuring counsel’s performance, how-
ever, that a motion to suppress Tice’s confession would have
carried some substance, without opining further as to its ulti-
mate fate until it becomes necessary to assess the prejudice,
if any, stemming from counsel’s inaction.
B.
1.
Detective Crank’s notes of his conversation with Tice were
on record with the state circuit court for more than three years
prior to Tice’s retrial, and Mr. Broccoletti had a copy of the
notes in his case file. As with any record of an accused’s
statements made in police custody, and especially a statement
volunteered without the benefit of a lawyer’s advice, the notes
should have been parsed to ascertain not only the havoc the
accused might have wreaked upon his defense, but also any
boon he may have unwittingly bestowed. Strickland itself
established in no uncertain terms that "counsel has a duty to
make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable deci-
sion that makes particular investigations unnecessary." 466
U.S. at 691. Nowhere in Justice O’Connor’s opinion for the
Court, however, is there the slightest indication that the duty
to investigate applies only to facts yet unknown, as opposed
to those already in the litigation file.
A reasonable investigation of the file in this case would
have revealed Detective Crank’s notes of Tice’s statement
that "he decide[d] not to say any more." J.A. 614. On its face,
such a declaration ought to give pause to even the greenest of
criminal defense lawyers. Mr. Broccoletti, certainly no neo-
phyte, candidly admitted at the state habeas hearing that "[t]he
one part of the notes that do concern me is where [Crank]
said, ‘[Tice] told me he decided not to say any more.’ As I go
back and look at that now, that statement may have generated
something, may have generated a motion." Id. at 911. Mr.
Broccoletti expressed his belief that "[t]here must have been
TICE v. JOHNSON 35
some reason I didn’t file it," id., but, on the witness stand, he
could not conceive of one.
The Director suggests that the reason may have been that,
had Tice’s confession been suppressed, the Commonwealth
would have sought to introduce, on rebuttal, inculpatory state-
ments Tice made at subsequent interviews, during plea nego-
tiations, and as a witness for the prosecution at Danser’s
preliminary hearing. In order to prevent the jury from consid-
ering those statements, the Director surmises, Tice would
have been constrained to present no defense case at all, which,
in light of the extremely favorable DNA evidence placing
Omar Ballard (and only Omar Ballard) at the crime scene,
amounted to a Hobson’s choice for counsel. The Director
speculates that Mr. Broccoletti deliberately and reasonably
chose instead to take his chances with the confession, which
he could (and did) argue to the jury was force-fed by the
police.
One might think that such an important and irrevocable
decision concerning trial tactics would have left an indelible
imprint upon the memory of the strategist. But Mr. Brocco-
letti could not independently recall seeing Detective Crank’s
notes in the first place, let alone remember evaluating Tice’s
statement or predicating a litigation plan thereon. It seems far
more probable that, as the district court suspected, "counsel
simply overlooked Detective Crank’s notes as a basis for sup-
pressing Tice’s confession." District Court Opinion 28.
We are therefore disinclined to accept the Director’s invita-
tion to engage in after-the-fact rationalization of a litigation
strategy that almost certainly was never contemplated.
Instead, we follow our own advice that "courts should not
conjure up tactical decisions an attorney could have made, but
plainly did not." Griffin v. Warden, Md. Corr. Adj. Ctr., 970
F.2d 1355, 1358 (4th Cir. 1992). It is a difficult enough task
for a reviewing court to pass judgment upon what was, with-
out straying into a nebulous supposition of what might have
36 TICE v. JOHNSON
been. As Judge Martin ruminated when confronted with the
Director’s position:
Ruling on a claim such as this already involves much
speculation. Would the confession have been sup-
pressed? Would the jury have convicted in the
absence of the confession? To compound the specu-
lation by deciding if the prosecution would have
offered other statements, whether they would have
been admissible, and what effect they might have
had (and this without an opportunity for the defense
to cross-examine the witnesses relating the other
statements) would extend the speculative to the
metaphysical.
Circuit Court Habeas Opinion 9. We entirely agree.
2.
Considering only those events that actually transpired,
Judge Martin concluded that Tice had made a sufficient show-
ing under Strickland of deficient performance. On appeal,
Tice contends that we should defer to Judge Martin on that
issue, because his was "the ‘last reasoned’ state court deci-
sion" with respect to the performance prong, Br. of Appellee
30, in that the Supreme Court of Virginia did not address that
prong and therefore interposed no barrier to our review de
novo. See Hodge v. Haeberlin, 579 F.3d 627, 649 (6th Cir.
2009) (ruling that federal habeas claim reviewed de novo
where "state court did not make any factual findings or legal
conclusions to which we could defer"); Perillo v. Johnson, 79
F.3d 441, 446 (5th Cir. 1996) (confirming that where a state
habeas court leaves a factual issue unresolved, a federal court
"is free to examine the issue unconstrained") (citation omit-
ted)). Tice contends that Judge Martin’s determination of
counsel’s deficiency "is a factual finding" entitled to a pre-
sumption of correctness pursuant to § 2254(e)(1). Br. of
Appellee 28.
TICE v. JOHNSON 37
Subsection (e)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that in federal
habeas corpus proceedings initiated by state prisoners, "a
determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be
presumed to be correct." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Contrary to
Tice’s contention, however, Strickland explicitly instructs that
"both the performance and prejudice components of the inef-
fectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact." 466
U.S. at 698. As such, a state court’s resolution of the Strick-
land predicates are plainly outside the ambit of § 2254(e)(1)’s
application to purely "factual issues," as is the ultimate issue
of effectiveness. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 ("[A] state
court conclusion that counsel rendered effective assistance is
not a finding of fact binding on the federal court to the extent
stated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) [now (e)]. Ineffectiveness is not
a question of basic, primary, or historical fact." (citation,
alteration, and quotation marks omitted)).
Even were we to suppose that counsel’s performance pre-
sents a pure question of fact, it is by no means clear that we
should consider Judge Martin’s decision to be the Common-
wealth’s final word on the matter, notwithstanding that the
Supreme Court of Virginia declined to take up the issue. In
Ylst v. Nunnemaker, the Supreme Court of the United States
held that, in order to ascertain whether a state had refused
relief upon a federal habeas claim because of a state law pro-
cedural bar (which would ordinarily foreclose federal review)
or because it had rejected the claim on the merits under fed-
eral law (thus permitting the federal courts to consider it), the
Court would "look through" any intervening summary deci-
sions to the "last reasoned decision" of a state court address-
ing the claim. 501 U.S. 797, 804 (1991).
Whether Tice’s lawyers performed deficiently at trial is not
a "claim," but merely constitutes a necessary component of
one — the allegation that Tice did not receive the effective
assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
The Supreme Court of Virginia manifestly reached the merits
of that claim, denying it on the ground that Tice had not dem-
38 TICE v. JOHNSON
onstrated sufficient prejudice attributable to counsel’s pre-
sumably deficient performance. Tice cites no instances of our
having previously applied the "look through" rule of Ylst
where a state procedural bar is not at issue, and we have dis-
covered none ourselves. We shall not embark on that journey
today.
3.
Having conducted our own independent examination of
counsel’s performance with no deference to the state habeas
court, we nonetheless arrive at the same conclusion as Judge
Martin. There is simply nothing we can discern from the
record that would excuse the defense team’s failure to move
to suppress Tice’s confession. The error was of sufficient
magnitude that we cannot help but conclude that counsel’s
performance in this singular instance was constitutionally
deficient within the meaning of Strickland. Our only reluc-
tance in so saying is that, based on our review of the record,
the assistance provided Tice by Messrs. Broccoletti and Rus-
sell throughout both trials and the first appeal was otherwise
laudably effective and competent. However, "‘even an iso-
lated error’ can support an ineffective-assistance claim if it is
‘sufficiently egregious and prejudicial.’" Harrington v. Rich-
ter, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 770, 791 (2011) (quoting Murray
v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986) (internal citations omit-
ted)). Such is the case here.
C.
1.
It is our opinion that, had the motion to suppress been
made, the trial court would have had little choice but to grant
it. The analytical framework is clear: If Tice "indicate[d] in
any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that
he wishe[d] to remain silent," the Norfolk police were
required to stop interrogating him. Miranda v. Arizona, 384
TICE v. JOHNSON 39
U.S. 436, 473-74 (1966). If Tice’s statement that "he
decide[d] not to say any more" was sufficient to cease the
interrogation, his subsequent confession could not be admitted
at trial unless "his ‘right to cut off questioning’ was ‘scrupu-
lously honored.’" Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104
(1975) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474, 479).
Inasmuch as Detective Ford resumed questioning Tice a
scant thirteen minutes after Detective Crank had finished, did
not at that time issue fresh Miranda warnings, and continued
to inquire of Tice regarding the same subject matter that
prompted him to attempt to stop answering, it is plain that the
Norfolk Police Department did not scrupulously honor Tice’s
request to break off the interrogation. See Mosley, 423 U.S. at
327 (explaining that right to remain silent "fully respected"
where interrogation ceased upon suspect’s statement that "he
did not want to discuss" robbery offenses, no further question-
ing occurred for more than two hours, and interrogation
resumed on different offense after suspect had been advised
anew of his rights). Consequently, the trial court could only
have denied suppression of the confession by concluding that
Tice’s statement (from the first-person perspective) "I have
decided not to say any more" did not invoke his right to
silence to begin with.
We are dubious that the trial court might have ruled in such
a manner. Tice’s statement was as least as definite and unam-
biguous as the one in Mosley that served to cease the ques-
tioning in that case, and as clear and unequivocal as similar
invocations bearing on the same issue and cited by other
courts. See, e.g., United States v. Teemer, 260 F. Supp. 2d
187, 196 (D. Me. 2003) (suspect’s statement that "I’m not
gonna say anything after that, because that would violate my
rights" was "clear invocation of his right to remain silent");
United States v. Reid, 211 F. Supp. 2d 366, 372 (D. Mass.
2002) (statement "I have nothing else to say" was "suffi-
ciently pellucid" invocation of suspect’s right to silence);
Weeks v. Commonwealth, 450 S.E.2d 379, 385-86 (Va. 1994)
40 TICE v. JOHNSON
(suspect’s written notation on signed form that he "d[id] not
want to discuss case any further" held sufficient to invoke
Fifth Amendment rights); State v. Clemons, 552 P.2d 1208,
1210-12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976) (suspect’s declarations that "I
am not saying nothing" and "Man, I ain’t saying no more"
should have ended police interrogation); cf. Burket v. Ange-
lone, 208 F.3d 172, 200 (4th Cir. 2000) (suspect’s musings
that "I just don’t think that I should say anything" and "I need
somebody that I can talk to" failed to "constitute an unequivo-
cal request to remain silent"). A reasonable police officer
under the circumstances would have understood Tice’s state-
ment to mean that he no longer wished to answer questions
involving the crimes against Michelle Bosko, and, therefore,
that the officer should stop asking them.
In Burket, we considered a habeas petitioner’s claim that he
was unconstitutionally convicted of capital murder and sen-
tenced to death based in part on his confession made follow-
ing what he contended were valid invocations of his Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent. In analyzing the claim, we
observed that the rule of Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452,
459 (1994), regarding invocations of the Sixth Amendment
right to counsel requires that the suspect "articulate his desire
to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable
police officer in the circumstances would understand the
statement to be a request for an attorney." We acknowledged
then that "[w]e have not determined whether Davis is applica-
ble to invocations of the right to remain silent," Burket, 208
F.3d at 200. That issue has now been resolved in the affirma-
tive by the Supreme Court. See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130
S. Ct. 2250, 2260 (2010) (relating that accused’s prolonged
non-responsiveness to investigators’ questions was ambigu-
ous or equivocal expression of his desire to cease interroga-
tion, and therefore insufficient under Davis to invoke
privilege against self-incrimination). We conclude that Tice’s
invocation in this case was clear and unambiguous enough to
satisfy the strictures of Davis.
TICE v. JOHNSON 41
2.
a.
The final hurdle for Tice to clear in order to demonstrate
his entitlement to federal habeas relief is, by any measure, the
most daunting. Tice need satisfy not merely the ordinary Str-
ickland test for prejudice, namely, that a reasonable probabil-
ity existed, absent evidence of his confession, that the jury
would have acquitted him, but also meet the more stringent
burden imposed by § 2254(d)(1): that the Supreme Court of
Virginia’s judgment to the contrary was itself objectively
unreasonable. Mindful of the deference owed under AEDPA,
we will not discern an unreasonable application of federal law
unless "the state court’s decision lies well outside the bounda-
ries of permissible differences of opinion." Goodman v. Ber-
trand, 467 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 2006) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Judge Martin scoured the trial record for any proof beyond
Tice’s confession that might support the jury’s verdict, and he
identified only Dick’s testimony and the inconclusive physi-
cal evidence. Though rejecting Judge Martin’s legal conclu-
sion as to prejudice, the Supreme Court of Virginia accepted
his statement of the record. The district court concurred,
observing that, aside from the confession, "Dick’s testimony
was the only significant evidence of Tice’s guilt." District
Court Opinion 30.
The prejudice inquiry conducted by the Supreme Court of
Virginia thus proceeded on dual paths. It strove to dispel
doubts surrounding Dick’s credibility while seeking to harmo-
nize the physical and contextual evidence with the Common-
wealth’s theory of the case. With regard to the first path, the
Supreme Court of Virginia indicated that Dick’s testimony
was unwavering, even on cross-examination, as to his and
Tice’s involvement; Dick had no motive to lie, inasmuch as
he was already serving two life sentences; and there was no
42 TICE v. JOHNSON
evidence that Dick otherwise bore any animus toward Tice.
As to the second path, the court pointed out that evidence of
Williams’s obsession with Michelle admitted of ready impu-
tation to his network of acquaintances, including Tice and
Dick; Michelle’s fledgling friendship with Ballard supported
the notion that she opened her apartment door to him on
behalf of the group she had earlier rejected; and the expert
testimony was consistent with the notion that Michelle could
have been gang-raped with only Ballard leaving behind DNA
evidence of his involvement.
With all respect to the Supreme Court of Virginia and our
learned colleagues that comprise that august body, we simply
cannot subscribe to its assessment of Dick’s credibility. The
facts and inferences that might cause one to lend credence to
his sworn utterances seem rather less in number and substance
than those supporting disbelief. Mr. Broccoletti pointed out to
the jury via his thorough cross-examination that, as Dick’s
story evolved, he at first denied all involvement in the crimes,
then acknowledged merely being present, and thereafter con-
fessed to stabbing Michelle in defense of Williams. After
Dick was excluded as a contributor of the DNA samples, he
maintained that Williams alone killed Michelle but that Wil-
son was also there; after Wilson was likewise excluded, Dick
implicated Tice and two then-unknown persons as additional
participants. Though he denied at the preliminary hearing that
a seventh man, one of African-American descent, had been
present, Dick testified at Tice’s retrial that, in fact, a total of
eight men had been involved. The eight included Ballard, who
is African-American, together with Pauley, Farris, and Dan-
ser, all three of whom were eventually cleared of wrongdoing.
In between the preliminary hearing and the retrial, Dick wrote
a letter insisting that Pauley and Farris had acted alone. Two
days before the retrial, Dick confided to Tice’s lawyers that
he had not been in Michelle’s apartment at all.
The Supreme Court of Virginia hardly mentioned any of
the waves and troughs that made Dick’s ever-changing story
TICE v. JOHNSON 43
so difficult to stomach, referring to them as "other inaccura-
cies" lumped in with Dick’s inability to nail down a few fac-
tual details. The district court took issue with the state court’s
characterization, opining that it "only hints at how substan-
tially Dick’s testimony was impeached." District Court Opin-
ion 30. Indeed, Judge Martin volunteered that Mr.
Broccoletti’s cross-examination seemed "quite damaging,"
Circuit Court Habeas Opinion 9, an observation that the dis-
trict court termed "an understatement." District Court Opinion
37. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Virginia’s observation,
see supra Part II.B, that evidence of Danser’s and Pauley’s
alibis were "of questionable relevance" to the defense —
because the men’s whereabouts "did not relate to Tice’s activ-
ities on the date of the offense" — failed to address the thrust
of that evidence, namely, that it tended to disprove Dick’s tes-
timony that both men were present in Michelle’s apartment.
We concur with the district court that in light of "the vari-
ety of accounts Dick had provided and the lack of any signifi-
cant corroboration of his testimony . . . , a reasonable jury
would have grave doubts as to Dick’s veracity regarding
Tice’s participation in the crime." District Court Opinion 41.
That Dick resolutely stuck to the most recent version of his
story during his relatively short stint on the witness stand
offers small solace in the broader context of the interminable
metamorphosis and refinement that Dick’s account of the
facts underwent on its long, strange trip to the jurors’ ears.
We also share the district court’s skepticism of Dick’s sup-
posed impartiality, in that Dick managed to foreclose the pos-
sibility of being executed by agreeing to testify against Tice
and others. The district court recounted Dick’s testimony on
cross-examination, during which he "conceded that he had
entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution wherein
his charge of capital murder, with a possibility of a sentence
of death, was reduced to a charge of first degree murder." Dis-
trict Court Opinion 33. Mr. Broccoletti attempted to elicit the
details:
44 TICE v. JOHNSON
Q. Aren’t you under obligation to testify?
A. Yes, I’m under obligation, but I also want to.
Q. And if you failed to testify, Mr. Dick, you
breached or broken your plea agreement haven’t
you?
A. I’ve got no idea about that.
Q. And if you break or breach your plea agree-
ment, could you then be facing the death penalty
again?
A. I don’t know.
J.A. 219-20. While the Supreme Court of Virginia’s statement
that Dick "was not subject to any additional penalties" for his
crimes against Michelle was, probably, technically true, we
do not know whether the Commonwealth would have sought
rescission of Dick’s plea agreement had he testified differ-
ently or not at all. Perhaps more importantly, Dick testified
that he did not know, either. Given his overriding motivation
to support the Commonwealth’s case by living up to his end
of the plea bargain, the question of whether Dick happened to
harbor a personal grudge against Tice seems almost trivial by
comparison, with a finding in the negative a slender reed
indeed on which to posit Dick’s overall truthfulness.
We do not mean to say that a juror choosing to ignore
Dick’s obvious flaws as a witness and credit his testimony
that Tice helped to commit the awful crimes against Michelle
would be unreasonable in so doing. A juror could look to the
physical and contextual evidence to plausibly buy into the
Commonwealth’s theory that Williams, fueled by his preoccu-
pation with Michelle, talked Tice and the others into barging
their way into the Boskos’ apartment by way of Ballard’s sub-
terfuge, where the situation devolved into tragedy. Eight men
TICE v. JOHNSON 45
could have raped Michelle, just as Dick recounted, if Ballard
was the only one who ejaculated and the only one who
Michelle scratched with her fingernails. Certainly, the
Supreme Court of Virginia perceived Tice’s case through the
eyes of the foregoing hypothetical juror, see supra Part II.B,
and not the one who just as reasonably could have thought
that Dick made everything up, that Ballard gained access to
Michelle’s apartment for solely his own nefarious purposes,
and that Ballard’s was the only DNA found because he was
the only one there.
b.
We are not bound in this case, however, to view the facts
in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The familiar
sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis centering on whether a
reasonable jury could have convicted an adequately repre-
sented defendant is considerably more deferential than the
Strickland test for prejudice in an ineffective-assistance case,
which seeks only to discover whether the absence of error
would have given rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal,
such that confidence in the verdict is undermined. See John-
son v. Scott, 68 F.3d 106, 109-10 (5th Cir. 1995) ("[T]he suf-
ficiency of the ‘untainted’ evidence should not be the focus of
the prejudice inquiry. The materiality standard under Brady v.
Maryland[, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)], is identical to the prejudice
standard under Strickland.").
In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-41 (1995), the
Supreme Court addressed a Brady challenge to certain undis-
closed evidence favorable to the accused, citing United States
v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985), for the proposition that
such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability
that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result
of the proceeding would have been different." The Court clar-
ified that, in Bagley, it adopted the same formulation for
assessing materiality as it had for gauging prejudice in Strick-
land, confirming that "a showing of materiality does not
46 TICE v. JOHNSON
require demonstration by a preponderance that disclosure of
the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the
defendant’s acquittal." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434. The Court
emphasized that the reasonable-probability analysis for mate-
riality under Bagley, as for prejudice under Strickland, "is not
a sufficiency of evidence test." Id.
In examining the rationale given by the Supreme Court of
Virginia to support its reversal of Judge Martin’s grant of
habeas relief, it is apparent that the court misapprehended the
Strickland standard in evaluating the inculpatory force of the
legitimate evidence against Tice when juxtaposed with the
evidence that the jury should not have considered. The rela-
tive persuasiveness of Dick’s testimony vis-a-vis Tice’s
admission of guilt was not lost on the prosecution, which
argued strenuously to the jury that "[w]hat it comes down to
in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is the confession given by
the Defendant." See supra Part I. The jury indicated through
its question to Judge Poston toward the end of deliberations,
see id., that it was struggling to accord the proper weight to
Tice’s confession. It is generally a tricky business to try to
divine a jury’s thought processes by considering only its ques-
tions and speculating as to the reasons therefor, but it seems
safe to say that the jury here did not consider Dick’s testi-
mony to be conclusive evidence of Tice’s guilt.
Applying the standard properly, we cannot deny within the
parameters of reason that the jury, without Tice’s confession
before it, would necessarily have considered the Common-
wealth’s remaining evidence to be so lacking as to seriously
jeopardize the prospects for conviction. Had the confession
been suppressed, there was a reasonable probability that the
jury would have returned a different verdict, and we do not
see how we could reasonably conclude otherwise.
IV.
Defense counsel, though generally able and competent,
were constitutionally deficient in the discrete, though crucial,
TICE v. JOHNSON 47
instance of failing to have Tice’s confession suppressed. That
single mistake rendered suspect the jury’s verdict. The
Supreme Court of Virginia’s opposite conclusion constituted
an unreasonable application of federal law, as clearly estab-
lished by the Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland
v. Washington. Thus, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
Tice is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus issued by the dis-
trict court, whose judgment is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED