Waiters v. Lee

15‐3487‐pr  Waiters v. Lee    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT    August Term 2016    (Argued: September 13, 2016  Decided: May 22, 2017)    No. 15‐3487‐pr    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––    GENERAL WAITERS,    Petitioner‐Appellee,    ‐v.‐    WILLIAM LEE,    Superintendent of Greene Haven Correctional Facility,    Respondent‐Appellant.    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––    Before:    JACOBS, PARKER, LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.      Respondent‐Appellant  appeals  from  the  judgment  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  New  York  (Gleeson,  J.)  granting  Petitioner‐Appellee’s  petition  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  on  the  basis  of  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel.    We  conclude,  in  light  of  the  deferential  standard  of  review,  that  the  state  trial  court’s  determination  that  trial  counsel’s  conduct did not prejudice the defense was not unreasonable.    Accordingly, we  VACATE  the  judgment  of  the  district  court  and  REMAND  the  case  for  further  proceedings consistent with this opinion.  1  Judge JACOBS dissents in a separate opinion.    FOR PETITIONER‐APPELLEE:  MEGAN  WOLFE  BENETT  (Gary Farrell, on the  brief), New York, NY    FOR RESPONDENT‐APPELLANT:  RHEA  A.  GROB,  Assistant  District  Attorney  (Leonard  Joblove,  Jodi  L.  Mandel,  on  the  brief),  for  Kenneth  M.  Thompson,  District  Attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn, NY    DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge:  Petitioner‐Appellee  General  Waiters  (“Waiters”)  got  into  an  argument  at  the  home  of  his  then  girlfriend,  Jacqueline  Warren  (“Warren”),  one  Sunday  morning  in  May  2006  which  began,  as  Warren  testified,  when  she  told  Waiters  that  he’d  had  “too  much  to  drink.”    Trial  Tr.  at  399.    It  ended  when  Waiters  pulled  out  a  revolver  and  fired  repeatedly  at  Lorenzo,  Warren’s  adult  son  who  had  intervened  on  his  mother’s  behalf,  injuring  both  Lorenzo  and  Warren’s  14‐year  old  daughter,  and  killing  Warren’s  aunt  and  her  aunt’s  three‐year‐old  grandchild.    Following a jury trial, Waiters was convicted of murder, attempted  murder, and assault.      Waiters  does  not  deny  engaging  in  the  conduct  underlying  these  crimes.    Rather,  he  contends  that  his  trial  counsel  was  ineffective  for  failing  to  call  a  medical expert both to interpret—and thereby render admissible—the portion of  2  his  medical  records  documenting  his  blood  alcohol  level  (“BAC”),  and  to  expound  upon  the  effects  of  that  level  of  intoxication.    With  that  evidence,  Waiters contends, it is reasonably likely that the jury would not have concluded  that he harbored the requisite intent to commit his crimes.    The state trial court  judge who presided over Waiters’s four‐day trial rejected this claim, concluding,  inter  alia,  that  Waiters  had  presented  nothing  “establishing  that  medical  testimony  regarding  the  defendant’s  level  of  intoxication  would  have  changed  the  jury’s  finding.”    Appellant’s  App’x  at  55.    The  district  court  (Gleeson,  J.),  however, disagreed and granted Waiters’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on  this basis.      We  vacate  the  district  court’s  judgment  and  remand  for  further  proceedings  consistent  with  this  opinion.    To  establish  a  Strickland  claim,  the  likelihood  of  a  different  result  in  the  absence  of  the  alleged  deficiencies  in  representation “must be substantial, not just conceivable.”    Harrington v. Richter,  562  U.S.  86,  112  (2011);  see  also  Strickland  v.  Washington,  466  U.S.  688,  693  (1984)  (“It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable  effect  on  the  outcome  of  the  proceeding.”).    Here,  we  cannot  say  with  any  assurance how the jury might have weighed the proffered expert evidence of the  3  effects  of  intoxication  on  the  average  person’s  ability  to  form  intent  against  Waiters’s  own  specific  behavior  and  statements,  including  his  admission  to  Warren, about a year after the incident, that he was “aiming after” Lorenzo (and  thus  intending  to  shoot)  because  he  felt  that  Lorenzo  “was  trying  to  come  between” them.    Trial Tr. at 466 (emphasis added).    We are therefore guided by  the Supreme Court’s instruction that in cases like this one, governed by § 2254(d)  of  the  Antiterrorism  and  Effective  Death  Penalty  Act  of  1996  (“AEDPA”),  the  “state  court’s  determination  that  a  claim  lacks  merit  precludes  federal  habeas  relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state  court’s  decision.”    Harrington,  562  U.S.  at  101  (quoting  Yarborough  v.  Alvarado,  541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)).    Here, the state trial court’s determination that Waiters  failed  to  establish  prejudice  was  not  unreasonable;  it  was  not  so  lacking  in  justification as to be “beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”    Id.  at  103.    The  district  court  accordingly  erred  in  second‐guessing  that  determination and substituting its own judgment for that of the state court.  4  BACKGROUND  I.    Factual Background1  A.    The Offense Conduct  On the afternoon of Saturday, May 6, 2006, Warren threw Waiters a party  at  her  apartment,  in  which  Waiters  also  resided,  to  celebrate  his  36th  birthday.2    The  party  was  attended  by  members  of  Warren’s  family,  including  her  teenage  children  Derrick  and  Shatashia,  who  lived  with  Warren;  her  sister  and  sister’s  husband; and her aunt Mary Lee Clark (“Clark”) and Clark’s five grandchildren,  who ranged in age from only a couple of months old to about ten.    Waiters had begun drinking earlier in the day, and had additional Bacardi  Light and soda with Warren and Clark during the party.    According to Warren,  she and Waiters drank every day; sometimes a fifth of rum managed to last them  two  days.    Waiters  regularly  became  verbally  abusive  when  he  drank,  though  he  did  not  so  behave  that  afternoon.    The  party  lasted  until  about  11:00  p.m.,  when  Warren’s  sister  and  brother‐in‐law  left.    Clark  and  her  grandchildren  stayed  the  night.    Warren’s  23‐year‐old  son,  Lorenzo,  a  letter  carrier  with  the    The  factual  background  presented  here  is  derived  from  uncontroverted  trial  1 testimony except where noted otherwise.  2  Waiters had lived in Warren’s apartment on an “[o]ff and on” basis for four to  five years at the time of the shooting.    Trial Tr. at 158–59.      5  Postal Service who lived at the apartment but did not attend the birthday party,  returned home at about 2:00 a.m.        The next day, Waiters was up before 9:30 and went out to purchase cereal  and  milk  for  the  crowd.    Then,  before  11:00  a.m.,  he  resumed  drinking  with  Warren  and  Clark  for  about  half  an  hour.    Shortly  thereafter,  Warren  took  the  bottle from Waiters, telling him he’d had “too much to drink.”    Suppl. App’x at  43.    Waiters  resisted,  exclaiming  loudly,  “Fuck  you,  bitch,”  after  which  an  argument  ensued.    Id.  at  44.    According  to  Warren,  the  pair  feuded  for  a  period, until Waiters abruptly left the apartment, only to return about 10 minutes  later.3      Upon his return, Waiters proceeded directly to the couple’s bedroom.    He  remained there for 15 to 20 minutes before reappearing in the living room, now  wearing a jacket.    By this point, he was “screaming[,]. . . yelling[,] and . . . calling  [Warren] names.”    Id. at 46.    Clark implored him to calm down.    Waiters and  Warren exchanged curses before Warren demanded that he leave.      Lorenzo Warren testified that he heard the arguing and came out from his  bedroom to the living room to intervene, telling Waiters to “step away from [his]    Warren  testified  that  her  son,  Lorenzo,  joined  the  argument  shortly  before  3 Waiters  left,  but  Lorenzo  did  not,  in  his  testimony,  distinguish  between  the  periods  before and after Waiters’s absence from the apartment.      6  mother” and to not “get in [her] face.”4    Id. at 19.    Waiters told Lorenzo that the  argument  did  not  “concern”  him.    Id.  at  20.    Lorenzo  then  moved  closer  to  Waiters, at which point Warren and Clark pushed the two men to opposite ends  of the room.      Derrick, then 17, and his younger sister Shatashia, 14, by this time drawn  to the living room by the commotion, heard, respectively, Waiters tell Lorenzo, “I  got something for you,” Trial Tr. at 483, and “you don’t want me to pull what I  got  out  of  my  jacket,”  id.  at  309.    Lorenzo  nonetheless  openly  doubted  that  Waiters  had  anything  in  his  jacket.    Waiters  then  pulled  out  a  revolver  and  pointed  it  at  Lorenzo,  who,  according  to  his  trial  testimony,  continued  to  taunt  Waiters,  saying,  “That  gun  isn’t  loaded.    You  don’t  have  any  bullets  in  that  gun.”    Suppl. App’x at 32.      Waiters thereafter rapidly fired multiple shots.    Derrick observed Waiters  aim “[s]traight” at his brother, Trial. Tr. at 504, from a distance of about seven or  eight  feet.    Warren  saw  Waiters  shoot  at  Lorenzo  as  “he  started  going  toward  where  Lorenzo  was  standing.”    Id.  at  414.    Waiters’s  first  shot  hit  Lorenzo  in  the  thigh,  and  the  remainder  hit  Shatashia  in  the  thigh;  Clark  in  the  head,    Lorenzo  testified  that  Derrick  likewise  walked  in  and  defended  Clark  from  4 Waiters’s  verbal  abuse,  telling  Waiters  “not  to  talk  to  [his]  aunt  like  that.”    Suppl.  App’x at 22.  7  abdomen,  and  leg;  and  three‐year‐old  Tajmere  Clark,  who  had  run  out  to  her  grandmother  during  the  tumult,  in  the  head  and  chest.    Clark  was  rendered  comatose and succumbed to her injuries after trial; Tajmere died at the scene.      Waiters  thereafter  attempted  to  leave.    According  to  Derrick,  who  stood  between  Waiters  and  the  front  door,  Waiters  pointed  the  gun,  a  .357  revolver,  point‐blank  at  Derrick’s  face.    Waiters  then  “pulled  the  trigger.”    Id.  at  508.    When  the  gun  “clicked,”  id.  at  508,  indicating  to  Derrick  that  it  was  out  of  ammunition,  Waiters  moved  toward  the  exit  but  Derrick  tackled  him  to  the  ground  and  began  punching.    Lorenzo,  though  injured,  then  got  on  top  of  Waiters  and  instructed  his  brother  to  leave,  all  while  Waiters  continued  squeezing  the  trigger  of  his  gun  and  “pointing  it  wildly.”    Id.  at  248.        Lorenzo  began  punching  Waiters,  but  Waiters  indicated  that  Lorenzo  “wasn’t  strong enough” and “wasn’t causing him any harm,” id. at 181, asking him, “Is  that  all  you  got?,”  id.  at  420.    Waiters  ultimately  sustained  a  concussion  after  Lorenzo  hit  him  with  a  fish  tank  and  Derrick  hit  him  with  a  vase  at  Lorenzo’s  instruction, around which time Waiters yelled to Warren for help.      Police  and  paramedics  responded  to  the  scene  and  transported  both  Waiters  and  his  victims  to  the  hospital.    Medical  records  introduced  at  trial  8  noted  that  Waiters  was  intoxicated  when  he  arrived  at  Kings  County  Hospital  Center,  and  that  his  “CNS”  could  not  be  “assess[ed]  due  to  [his]  intoxicated  state.”5    Suppl.  App’x  at  94.    Records  not  before  the  trial  jury  but  part  of  the  record on appeal indicate that as of 12:33 p.m., approximately an hour after the  events  in  question,  Waiters  registered  an  ethyl  alcohol  level  of  386.24,  the  equivalent of a 0.39 BAC, which the hospital marked as “critical.”    Appellant’s  App’x at 76.    Waiters was alert on admission, but confused and unaware of the  time  or  where  he  was.    He  experienced  continued  disorientation  and  reported  hallucinations in the days thereafter; hospital staff documented his delirium and  history of “alcohol abuse and dependence.”    Suppl. App’x at 103.    B.    The Trial    Beginning  on  May  5,  2008,  General  Waiters  stood  trial  in  New  York  Supreme  Court,  Kings  County. 6     In  its  opening  statement,  the  prosecution  explained that it would prove that Waiters, in an alcohol‐fueled rage, attempted  to shoot and kill Lorenzo Warren, and that he was therefore responsible for all of    While  not  defined  in  the  hospital  records,  CNS  refers  to  Waiters’s  central  5 nervous system.        On  November  16,  2007,  prior  to  trial,  Waiters  sought  appointment  of  new  6 counsel,  citing,  inter  alia,  his  attorney’s  failure  to  negotiate  a  plea  deal  that  did  not  include the possibility of life imprisonment.    The state trial court denied the motion.      9  the  resulting  injuries—and,  at  that  time,  the  single  fatality7—under  a  theory  of  transferred  intent.    Waiters’s  attorney,  Calvin  Simons  (“Simons”),  did  not  articulate  a  particular  defense  in  his  opening,  but  he  stressed  to  the  jury  that  Waiters  was  not  charged  with  intending  to  kill  or  injure  anyone  but  Lorenzo:  “The  issue  which  you  will  focus  on,  as  the  People  have  stated,  will  be  Lorenzo  Warren.”    Id. at 9.      During  the  prosecution’s  case  in  chief,  Lorenzo  testified  that  Waiters  appeared drunk during their altercation because his “speech . . . was a little bit  slurred.”    Id.  at  30.    Lorenzo  indicated,  however,  that  he  had  previously  seen  Waiters  intoxicated  “around  maybe  ten”  times,  id.  at  27,  and  that  he  had  been  “way worse” on those occasions, id. at 30.    Derrick testified that Waiters drank  during  the  party  the  previous  evening,  as  did  the  other  adults,  while  Shatashia  testified that she did not notice whether the adults were drinking, as she “was in  a room with the kids.”    Id. at 37.      For her part, Warren testified that Waiters drank on a daily basis, and that  it  caused  him  to  become  verbally  abusive.    She  did  not  recall,  however,  how  much Waiters had to drink on the day of his party or the next morning, although    As  noted  above,  Mary  Lee  Clark  died  of  her  injuries  after  the  trial  had  7 concluded.  10  she testified that she drank with him and with Clark for about half an hour that  morning before taking the bottle of Bacardi away.      Warren  further  testified  that  about  a  year  after  the  shootings,  in  Spring  2007,  Waiters  telephoned  her.    During the  conversation,  Warren asked  Waiters  why  he  had  done  what  he  did.    Waiters  explained  that  “he  was  aiming  after  [Lorenzo] . . . [b]ecause he was coming between [them].”    Trial Tr. at 421.        At  the  conclusion  of  the  prosecution’s  case,  Simons  indicated  that  the  defense would decide over the weekend whether to call Dr. Sanford Drob as part  of  the  defense  case.    Dr.  Drob  was  a  forensic  psychologist  engaged  by  the  defense  to  explore  a  possible  affirmative  defense  of  extreme  emotional  disturbance.    During  the  pretrial  period,  Waiters  was  evaluated  by  both  Dr.  Drob  and  Dr.  Alexander  Sasha  Bardey—a  prosecution  expert—in  connection  with  this  defense,  for  which  Simons  had  served  notice.    The  prosecution  responded  by  noting  that  Dr.  Drob’s  testimony  might  open  the  door  to  the  admission  of  a  statement  made  by  Waiters  to  police  in  the  aftermath  of  the  shootings.8    The trial court advised Simons to “make Doctor Drob aware of the  8   Simons  had  successfully  obtained  the  pretrial  suppression  of  this  statement,  which was taken at the Intensive Care Unit at Kings County Hospital on May 8, 2006, a  day after the shootings.    In the statement, according to police, Waiters indicated, inter  alia, that Warren’s oldest son “was giving him a hard time about how much he had been  11  fact  that  certainly  if  he  opens  the  door,  and  maybe  opening  a  door  to  a  can  of  worms,  that  would not  be  helpful  to  your  client.”    Id.  at  524.    It  then  recessed  for the weekend.        The  following  Monday,  Simons  informed  the  trial  court  that  Waiters  did  not  want  Dr.  Drob  to  testify.    Waiters  confirmed  that  proposition,  and  further  indicated  that  he  did  not  wish  to  testify  on  his  own  behalf.    Simons  thereafter  sought  to  introduce  certified  medical  records  of  Waiters’s  hospital  visit  in  support of the argument that Waiters was intoxicated and unable to form intent.    The prosecution objected, arguing primarily that the evidence already indicated  that  Waiters  was  drinking,  intoxicated,  and  suffered  a  head  injury;  that  the  hospital  records  would  invite  speculation  absent  an  explanation  of  the  terms  contained  therein;  and  that  introducing  them  might  open  the  door  to  evidence  that General Waiters, “in talking to both Doctor Drob[] and Doctor Bardey, said  that he hadn’t been drinking that morning, was not intoxicated, and was able to  drinking,”  after which Waiters went into the bedroom  and retrieved  a gun.    Nov.  17,  2011  Tr.  at  17.    He  began  to  fire,  according  to  his  account  of  the  incident,  when  “Jackie’s son started to come at him down the hallway,” after which Lorenzo, assisted  by Derrick, ”got on top of him [and] started stomping” until he passed out.    Id. at 17– 18.          12  give  a  coherent  version,  his  coherent  version  about  what  had  happened.” 9    Suppl.  App’x  at  66.    The  trial  court  ultimately  admitted  two  redacted  pages  of  the medical records which together indicated, as previously stated, that Waiters  arrived  at  the  hospital  in  an  intoxicated  state  and  that  hospital  staff  could  not  evaluate his “CNS” as a result.    The trial court found that all other parts of the  medical  record  “would  not  be  [relevant]  without  an  explanation  by  medical  personnel.”10    Id. at 73.    Simons took exception to the redaction, but rather than  seek  an  adjournment  to  obtain  a  medical  expert,  he  indicated  that  the  defense  9   Dr. Drob’s report indicates that Waiters claimed that Lorenzo threatened to kill  him on the morning of the shootings, causing Waiters to fear for his life and to go “to  the bedroom and [get] his gun.”    Sanford L. Drob, Preliminary Forensic Psychological  Evaluation 4–5 (Sept. 24, 2007), ECF No. 37.    Waiters shot at Lorenzo, he told Dr. Drob,  to  scare  him,  after  Lorenzo  allegedly  said,  “I’ll  kill  you  now.”    Id.  at  5.    Waiters  indicated that he shot Tajmere Clark accidentally, after which he “fired another shot at  Lorenzo and hit him in the leg.”    Id. at 4–5.    Waiters indicated that he was not drunk  that  morning,  but  that  he  was  hung  over.    Id.  at  6.    Dr.  Drob  concluded  that  “there  [was]  little  to  suggest  that  Mr.  Waiters  was  either  unaware  of  the  nature  of  his  act  or  unable to appreciate its wrongfulness.”    Id. at 23.    Waiters’s statements to Dr. Bardey  similarly  suggested  that  Waiters  was  aware  of  his  actions  that  day,  and  picked  up,  pointed, and shot a gun at Lorenzo Warren to scare him.    See Alexander Sasha Bardey,  Forensic‐Psychiatric Evaluation 7, 15 (Oct. 9, 2007), ECF No. 37.  10  The dissent contends that the state trial judge “urged defense counsel to call an  expert”  and  “went  as  far  as  she  could  go  without  committing  advocacy.”    Yet  the  record  indicates  that  the  trial  judge,  the  very  judge  who  later  found  that  Simons’s  performance did not prejudice Waiters’s defense, was not commenting on the probative  value of the hospital records, but rather was suggesting that the best way to render them  admissible was to call an expert to interpret them.    See, e.g., Suppl. App’x at 68 (“[T]he  best  way  would  have  been  to  get  someone  from  the hospital  to  certainly  interpret  the  records . . . .”).    13  was “prepared to go forward” without the full medical records being admitted.11    Id. at 73.    In his summation, Simons argued that Waiters was so intoxicated that he  did not intend to kill Lorenzo, but rather was merely reckless.    He attempted to  cast doubt on the testimony of Warren and her family suggesting the contrary by  emphasizing  discrepancies  and  omissions  in  the  various  witness  accounts.    He  noted,  among  other  things,  that  Waiters  started  drinking  again  that  morning;  that  the  medical  records  indicated  that  he  was  intoxicated;  that  multiple  witnesses  testified  that  Waiters  changed  when  he  drank;  and  that  Waiters  continued to pull the trigger on his revolver even after he had discharged all of  its  bullets.    Simons  also  attacked  the  credibility  of  Warren’s  testimony  about  Waiters’s phone call in Spring 2007, noting that she did not immediately mention  the  call  to  the  prosecutor,  even  though  she  had  “already  talked  to  the  District  Attorney in the case.”    Trial Tr. at 607–08.      11  The prosecution thereafter suggested that the state trial court’s determination  to  admit  even  the  redacted  pages  rendered  it  “relevant  and  admissible  to  call  either  Doctor Drob or Doctor Bardey,” Suppl. App’x at 73, given that Waiters “gave accounts  to  both  [doctors]  in  which  he  talk[ed]  about  [the  fact]  that  he  clearly  knew  what  was  going on and that he had a specific intent,” Trial Tr. at 555.    The defense objected, and  the  trial  court,  without  explicitly  addressing  whether  Waiters  had  opened  the  door,  determined that it would admit the redacted records over the prosecution’s objection.      14  In  response,  the  prosecution  also  focused  on  Waiters’s  intent,  noting  that  Waiters  was  able  to  perform  the  physical  acts  necessary  to  commit  his  crimes,  and  that  his  use  of  the  gun—and  specifically  the  fact  that  he  targeted  and  successfully  shot  Lorenzo,  “track[ing]  over  to”  follow  him  as  Lorenzo  moved  across  the  apartment—suggested  that  he  was  able  to  intend,  and  did  intend,  to  kill.    Id. at 629.      The  prosecution  likewise  argued  that,  while  Waiters  “drank  seriously  every day,” id. at 633, and was voluntarily intoxicated that morning, the witness  testimony  suggested  he  was  not  so  severely  intoxicated  that  he  was  unable  to  form intent.    Indeed, the prosecution explained that Waiters bought cereal and  milk that morning; argued with Warren about his drinking; obtained a revolver  and hid it in his jacket; argued with and ultimately shot Lorenzo; and attempted  to escape the apartment after exhausting his ammunition.    Moreover, Waiters’s  phone  call  to  Warren,  the  prosecution  contended,  clearly  demonstrated  that  he  formed the requisite intent to commit his crimes: “[I]f he’s so blown out, if he is  so, so soused that he can’t form intent . . . when Jackie asked him ‘Why did you  do it?’ he would have said, ‘Honey, I don’t know.’    But he doesn’t.”    Id. at 642.    Instead,  the  prosecution  maintained,  General  Waiters  admitted  that  he  intended  15  to  shoot  Lorenzo  “to  eliminate  him  for  coming  between”  Waiters  and  Warren.    Id. at 642.          Thereafter, at Simons’s request, the state trial court: (a) instructed the jury  on the relevance of intoxication evidence, describing how it can serve to negate  the  intent  element  of  the  crimes  with  which  Waiters  was  charged,  and  (b)  instructed  the  jury  on  manslaughter  in  the  first  degree,  as  a  lesser–included  charge of second degree murder.    Thereafter, on May 13, 2008—the same day on  which  deliberations  began—the  jury  found  Waiters  guilty  of  one  count  of  murder  in  the  second  degree,  in  violation  of  New  York  Penal  Law  § 125.25(1);  one count of attempted murder in the second degree, in violation of  New York  Penal Law §§ 110.00 and 125.25(1); and two counts of assault in the first degree,  in  violation  of  New  York  Penal  Law  § 120.10(1).    The  trial  court  ultimately  sentenced Waiters to consecutive sentences of 25 years to life for second‐degree  murder,  10  years  for  second‐degree  attempted  murder,  25  years  and  five  years  for  each  of  the  assault  counts,  respectively,  and  five  years  of  post‐release  supervision.          16  II. Post‐Trial Proceedings  Waiters filed both a pro se motion to vacate his conviction under New York  Criminal  Procedure  Law  § 440.10(1)(h)  (the  “440.10  motion”)  and,  with  the  assistance of counsel, a direct appeal.    In his 440.10 motion, Waiters maintained  that Simons was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call an expert witness to  interpret  his  hospital  records  and  testify  about  his  intoxication,  and  for  not  requesting that the trial court charge the jury on second‐degree manslaughter.12    On  January  26,  2011,  the  state  trial  court  denied  Waiters’s  440.10  motion  as  procedurally barred, concluding that sufficient facts appeared on the face of the  record to permit review of his claims on direct appeal.    The New York Supreme  Court  Appellate  Division  –  Second  Judicial  Department  (“Appellate  Division”)  denied leave to appeal.      Waiters  thereafter  filed  a  pro  se  supplemental  brief  in  his  direct  appeal,  dated  February  4,  2011,  alleging  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel  for  the  same  reasons as those identified in his 440.10 motion.    On May 8, 2012, the Appellate  Division  modified  Waiters’s  sentence  by  directing  that  portions  of  it  run  concurrently,  but  otherwise  rejected  Waiters’s  appeal.    See  People  v.  Waiters,  95  12  Unlike  first  degree  manslaughter,  which  requires  a  specific  intent  “to  cause  serious  physical  injury  to  another  person,”  N.Y.  Penal  Law  § 125.20(1),  second  degree  manslaughter entails a mens rea of only recklessness, see N.Y. Penal Law § 125.15.  17  A.D.3d 1043, 1044–45 (2d Dep’t 2012).    The Appellate Division determined that  Waiters’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not be resolved “without  reference  to  matter  outside  the  record,”  such  that  it  was,  in  fact,  appropriately  raised  in  a  440.10  motion.    Id.  at  1044–45.    The  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  denied leave to appeal.    People v. Waiters, 19 N.Y.3d 1002 (2012).  A year later, on June 26, 2013, Waiters filed a pro se habeas petition in the  United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C.  §  2254(d),  alleging,  once  again,  that  Simons  was  constitutionally  ineffective  for  the  same  reasons  as  those  identified  in  his  440.10  motion.    On  November  5,  2013,  the  district  court  (Gleeson,  J.)  appointed  counsel  and  stayed  the  case  to  permit  Waiters  to  exhaust  his  claims  through  a  renewed  440.10  motion.    The  state  trial  court  thereafter  held  an  evidentiary  hearing  on  Waiters’s  renewed  440.10 motion on May 28 and 29, 2014—six years after Waiters’s trial—at which  Waiters  called  Dr.  Richard  Stripp,  a  forensic  toxicologist,  and  Simons,  his  trial  attorney.13    Dr. Stripp testified that Waiters’s BAC of 0.39 was “significantly elevated,”  Appellant’s  App’x  at  75,  and  that  it  meant  that  Waiters  had  consumed  sixteen  13   Waiters’s  renewed  440.10  motion  included  an  additional  theory  of  ineffectiveness,  namely  Simons’s  failure  to  impeach  Warren  with  prior  inconsistent  statements.      18  alcoholic  drinks  that  morning,  or  even  more  if  his  drinking  was  spread  over  a  longer period of time.14    Dr. Stripp further opined that an average person with  such  a  high  BAC  would  suffer  “motor  impairment”  and  “significant  cognitive  impairment,”  id.  at  81,  including  compromised  judgment  and  emotional  instability, blackouts, and amnesia.      Dr.  Stripp  also  recognized,  however,  that  there  is  “very  significant  individual[]  variation”  in  how  individuals  are  affected  by  alcohol,  such  that  tolerance is “one of the most important considerations when interpreting a blood  alcohol  concentration.”    Id.  at  68.    Accordingly,  he  explained  that  a  “very  tolerant drinker [can] have some level of functioning” when intoxicated, id. at 82,  such that the effects of intoxication—be they physical or mental, which Dr. Stripp  explained  do  not  always  manifest  in  tandem—may  be  reduced  by  as  much  as  half.    In  fact,  Dr.  Stripp  indicated  that  he  had  seen  individuals  with  very  high  BACs who were, despite exhibiting poor judgment, still able to form intent.      Based on the medical records, Dr. Stripp noted that while hospitalized in  the  aftermath  of  the  shootings,  Waiters  suffered  from  delirium  and  hallucinations  caused  by  alcohol  withdrawal  which,  together  with  abnormal  14  Dr.  Stripp  also  indicated  that  Waiters’s  BAC  “could  have  been  slightly higher, .  .  .  at  that  level[,]  or  even  slightly  lower”  at  the  time  of  the  incident.    Appellant’s App’x at 76.  19  liver  function,  suggested  that  Waiters  had  a  long‐term  alcohol  problem  and  consumed  large  quantities  on  a  daily  basis.    Therefore,  and  given  the  aforementioned “significant variation” in individuals’ alcohol tolerance, id. at 89,  Dr. Stripp concluded that while Waiters’s “[d]efinite[]” drunkenness affected his  “functioning  and  judgment,”  id.  at  95,  102,  Dr.  Stripp  could  not  opine  on  how  tolerant  Waiters  was,  or  on  what  effect  his  intoxication  may  have  had  on  his  ability to form intent.15      Simons,  in  his  testimony,  explained  that  he  sought  and  obtained  a  subpoena for Waiters’s hospital records within two weeks of his first appearance  in  the  case.16    Simons  and  his  client  initially  planned  on  pursuing  an  extreme  emotional disturbance defense and calling both Dr. Drob and Waiters to support  it, but Simons became concerned about the defense’s viability before trial, and it  was ultimately not pursued.17    Simons further represented that Waiters, on the    Dr.  Stripp  also  confirmed  that  some  of  the  symptoms  that  Waiters  exhibited  15 upon admission to the hospital may have been attributable to his head injury.        In  reviewing  the  records,  Simons  had  the  assistance  of  family  members—an  16 internist, a trauma surgeon, and a registered nurse—and, to the best of his recollection,  a defense investigator with medical training.        In  a  letter  to  his  client  written  in  October  2007,  over  six  months  before  trial,  17 Simons  indicated  that  the  defense,  which  was  apparently  predicated  on  Waiters’s  supposed  reaction  to  Lorenzo  Warren’s  allegedly  threatening  conduct,  would  be  difficult  given that none of  the  witnesses stated that  Lorenzo  threatened Waiters.    As  Simons  put  it  to  Waiters  in  the  pretrial  period,  Waiters’s  testimony  might  constitute  20  day  of  his  scheduled  testimony,  decided  not  to  take  the  stand,  despite  Simons  advising him to do so.      Sometime  after  the  close  of  the  prosecution’s  case,  the  defense  settled  on  an  intoxication‐based  theory  and,  to  that  end,  Simons  sought  to  introduce  Waiters’s  full  hospital  records.    Simons  indicated  that  he  discussed  the  significance  of  Waiters’s  blood  alcohol  level  with  his  client  “a  lot,”  but  that  the  “problem”  was  that  when  he  asked  Waiters  about  his  0.39  BAC,  Waiters  told  him—consistent  with  his  statements  to  Dr.  Drob  and  Dr.  Bardey—that  he  was  not  drunk,  and  that  while  he  “drank  the  night  before,”  on  the  morning  of  the  shootings  he  “did  not  feel  drunk  at  all.”    Id.  at  132.    Further,  according  to  Simons, Waiters consistently represented that he fired at Lorenzo to “scare him  or . . . hit him in the leg,” id. at 182, the same explanation he had provided to the  experts.    Simons  ultimately  did  not  offer  a  strategic  reason  for  not  calling  a  medical  expert,  claiming  he  could  no  longer  remember  what  he  was  thinking,  though he affirmed he was pursuing a strategy in Waiters’s best interest.      Following  the  hearing,  on  October  14,  2014,  the  state  trial  court  denied  Waiters’s renewed 440.10 motion, finding that Simons’s failure to call a medical  “the  only  evidence  of  a  [threat]  and  if  a  jury  does  not  believe  you  then  you  will  probably  be  convicted.”    Letter  from  Calvin  J.  Simons  to  General  Waiters  (Oct.  25,  2007), ECF. No. 37.  21  expert to explain Waiters’s medical records and BAC amounted to a permissible  “mere  tactical  decision”  under  Strickland.    Id.  at  55.    The  trial  court  explained  that “[t]he defendant’s intoxicated state was explored before the jury,” and that,  more  generally,  “the  defendant’s  expert,  Dr.  Stripp  .  .  .  could  not  establish  that  the defendant’s blood alcohol level was such that his intent to commit the crime  was  negated.”    Id.  at  55.    The  trial  court  accordingly  determined  that  while  Simons  could  have  called  an  expert  to  explain  the  medical  records,  “[p]articularly in light of the defendant’s claims that he was not intoxicated at the  time  of  this  incident,”  the  failure  to  do  so  “under  the  particular  facts  and  circumstances  of  [the]  case”  did  not  constitute  ineffective  assistance.    Id.  at  55.    Simons,  the  trial  court  also  noted,  was  placed  “in  the  untenable  position  of  setting  forth  a  theory  which  was  not  consistent  with  the  defendant’s  own  position,”  namely  that  he  was  not  intoxicated.    Id.  at  55.    Thus,  for  each  ineffectiveness contention “there [were] equally plausible explanations why trial  counsel proceeded in the manner which he did at the time of the trial.”    Id. at 55.    As  to  prejudice,  the  state  trial  court  first  observed  that  Waiters’s  intoxicated  state  and  its  impact  on  the  defendant’s  capacity  to  form  intent  had  been  considered  and  rejected  by  the  jury,  and  that  expert  evidence  would  not  22  likely  have  influenced  this  result  given  that  “Dr.  Stripp  established  [that  while]  the defendant had a particularly high blood alcohol level . . . the effects of [that  level]  could  vary  greatly  depending  on  the  defendant’s  tolerance.”    Id.  at  55.    There  was  otherwise  “no  testimony  presented  which  established  that  medical  testimony  regarding  the  defendant’s  level  of  intoxication  would  have  changed  the jury’s finding.”    Id. at 55.    Accordingly, the trial court concluded that while  Simons could have called an expert, “his failure to do so [did] not rise to the level  of  a  course  of  conduct  which  was  inexplicably  prejudicial.”18    Id.  at  55.    The  Appellate Division again denied leave to appeal.      Waiters  thereafter  returned  to  district  court.    The  district  court  lifted  the  stay,  ordered  additional  briefing,  and  held  oral  argument  on  Waiters’s  habeas  petition  on  July  24,  2015.    On  September  25,  2015,  the  district  court  granted  Waiters’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the state court’s rejection of  his 440.10 motion to be “an unreasonable application of the Strickland standard,”  id. at 24, and ordering Waiters’s release within 45 days.    The district court also  denied  the  State’s  application  for  a  stay  pending  the  appeal.    The  State  thereafter filed  an  application  for  a  stay  in  this  Court,  and on  April  5,  2016,  we    The  state  trial  court  also  rejected  Waiters’s  other  ineffective  assistance  claims  18 stemming  from  Simons’s  decision  not  to  impeach  Warren  with  prior  inconsistent  statements, and not to seek a charge of second‐degree manslaughter.      23  granted  the  application  and  stayed  Waiters’s  release  indefinitely  pending  this  panel’s resolution of the appeal.      DISCUSSION  I  The  Supreme  Court  in  Strickland  set  forth  a  two‐part  test  for  evaluating  claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.    To warrant relief, a defendant must  demonstrate  both  “that  counsel’s  performance  was  deficient”  and  “that  the  deficient  performance  prejudiced  the  defense.” 19     Strickland,  466  U.S.  at  687;  accord Fischer v. Smith, 780 F.3d 556, 559 (2d Cir. 2015).    “Without proof of both  deficient performance and prejudice to the defense,” the Supreme Court has said,  it  cannot  be  shown  that  the  conviction  “‘resulted  from  a  breakdown  in  the  adversary process that rendered the result of the proceeding unreliable,’” and the  conviction  “should  [therefore]  stand.”    Bell  v.  Cone,  535  U.S.  685,  695  (2002)  (quoting  Strickland,  466  U.S.  at  687).    We  review  the  district  court’s  grant  of  a  19   The  habeas  petitioner  must  satisfy  both  prongs,  and  at  all  times  “bears  the  ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his constitutional  rights [were] violated.”    Cardoza v. Rock, 731 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Epps  v. Poole, 687 F.3d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 2012)); see also Carrion v. Smith, 549 F.3d 583, 588 (2d Cir.  2008)  (“[T]he  burden  rests  on  the  accused  to  demonstrate  a  constitutional  violation.”  (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 (1984))).  24  petition  for  habeas  corpus  de  novo,  and  its  underlying  findings  of  fact  for  clear  error.    Ramchair v. Conway, 601 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2010).      Under AEDPA, when a state court adjudicates a petitioner’s habeas claim  on  the  merits,  a  district  court  may  only  grant  relief  where  the  state  court’s  decision  was  “contrary  to,  or  involved  an  unreasonable  application  of,  clearly  established Federal law,” or was “based on an unreasonable determination of the  facts  in  light  of  the  evidence  presented.”    28  U.S.C.  § 2254(d).    AEDPA  by  its  terms  requires  substantial  deference  to  the  state  court’s  decision  in  all  cases  governed,  as  here,  by  § 2254(d).20    See  Cavazos  v.  Smith,  565 U.S. 1,  9  (2011)  (per    Indeed,  the  Supreme  Court  has  indicated  that  double  deference  is  appropriate  20 when  evaluating  Strickland  claims  governed  by  §  2254(d).    See,  e.g.,  Knowles  v.  Mizrayance,  556  U.S.  111,  123  (2009).    Whether  such  heightened  deference  applies  to  both prongs of a Strickland claim, or only to the ineffective assistance prong, remains an  open question in this Circuit.    The Supreme Court has suggested that double deference  is  appropriate  as  to  both  prongs,  see  Cullen  v.  Pinholster,  563  U.S.  170,  202  (2011)  (distinguishing  two  Supreme  Court  cases  because  the  “Court  did  not  apply  AEDPA  deference  to  the  question  of  prejudice  in  those  cases;  each  of  them  lack  the  important  ‘doubly  deferential’  standard  of  Strickland  and  AEDPA”),  but  the  Circuits  that  have  ruled  on  the  issue  are  split,  compare  Hardy  v.  Chappell,  849  F.3d  803,  825  n.10  (9th  Cir.  2016)  (explaining  that  “a  case  considering  only  [the  prejudice]  prong  is  not  subject  to  double  deference”);  Evans  v.  Sec’y,  Dep’t  of  Corr.,  703  F.3d  1316,  1333  (11th  Cir.  2013)  (“[D]ouble deference does not apply to the prejudice inquiry.”) with Foust v. Houk, 655  F.3d 524, 534 (6th Cir. 2011) (“We therefore afford double deference . . . on both prongs  of the Strickland test.”); Elmore v. Ozmint, 661 F.3d 783, 876 (4th Cir. 2011) (Wilkinson, J.,  dissenting) (observing that “courts regularly apply the ‘doubly deferential’ standard of  Strickland and AEDPA to both the performance and prejudice prongs,” and describing  that  practice  as  “mak[ing]  good  sense”).    We  need  not  resolve  the  question  here  25  curiam)  (noting  “the  necessity  of  deference  to  state  courts  in  § 2254(d)  habeas  cases”).      The operative question in reviewing a state court’s Strickland ruling is thus  “not  whether  a  federal  court  believes  the  state  court’s  determination  was  incorrect[,]  but  [rather]  whether  that  determination  was  [objectively]  unreasonable—a  substantially  higher  threshold.”    Schriro  v.  Landrigan,  550  U.S.  465,  473  (2006);  accord  Yarborough  v.  Alvarado,  541  U.S.  652,  665  (2004);  see  also  Jones v. Stinson, 229 F.3d 112, 119 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining that, for application of  a  clearly  established  federal  law  to  be  unreasonable,  the  state  court  must  not  merely  have  erred,  but  rather  its  actions  must  be  “somewhere  between  ‘merely  erroneous and unreasonable to all reasonable jurists’” (quoting Francis S. v. Stone,  221  F.3d  100,  109  (2d  Cir.  2000))).    Accordingly,  to  justify  relief,  Waiters  was  required  to  establish  “that  the  state  court’s  ruling .  .  .  was  so  lacking  in  justification  that  there  was  an  error  well  understood  and  comprehended  in  existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”    Richter, 562  U.S. at 103; accord Vega v. Walsh, 669 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2012).      because the application of AEDPA deference alone is sufficient to conclude that vacatur  is the proper course.  26  Because this appeal can be resolved with reference to Strickland’s prejudice  prong alone, we assume, without deciding, that there was no strategic rationale  for Simons’s decision not to call a medical expert.    To be clear, however, the fact  that Simons no longer remembers his reason for this decision does not preclude a  determination  that  Waiters  failed  to  establish  constitutionally  defective  representation.    The  state  trial  judge  noted  that  for  each  argument  raised  by  Waiters  supposedly  demonstrating  his  counsel’s  ineffectiveness,  “there  [were]  equally plausible explanations why trial counsel proceeded in the manner which  he did at the time of the trial.”    Appellant’s App’x at 55.    We see no reason to  disagree.21    But, as the Supreme Court explained in Strickland itself, “[t]he object  21  As  the  state  court  noted,  while  Waiters’s  repeated  insistence  to  Simons,  Dr.  Drob, and Dr. Bardey that he was aware of his actions and intended to shoot at Lorenzo  did not preclude his attorney from calling a medical expert, Waiters’s statements were  nonetheless  relevant  to  the  question  whether  Simons  provided  constitutionally  ineffective assistance in electing not to call one.    See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 165  (1986)  (stressing  courts  “must  be  careful  not  to  narrow  the  wide  range  of  conduct  acceptable under the Sixth Amendment so restrictively as to constitutionalize particular  standards  of  professional  conduct,”  and  noting  that  “the  Sixth  Amendment  inquiry  is  into  whether  the  attorney’s  conduct  was  ‘reasonably  effective’”).    Indeed,  the  prosecution  suggested  at  trial  that  introducing  medical  evidence  of  Waiters’s  level  of  intoxication  would  open  the  door  to  the  admission  of  Waiters’s  statements  to  the  doctors—evidence  that  would  have  been  devastating  to  the  defense.    See  People  v.  Rodriguez, 134 A.D.3d 512, 513 (1st Dep’t 2015) (concluding that the defendant “was not  deprived of effective assistance by counsel’s decision” not to put on evidence that might  have  opened  the  door  to  the  defendant’s  incriminating  admissions);  see  also  People  v.  Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646 (1993) (explaining that “when the defendant or a witness for  the  defense  testifies  to  facts  that  are  in  conflict  with  .  .  .  precluded  evidence,”  the  27  of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance” so that “[i]f it is  easier  to  dispose  of  an  ineffectiveness  claim  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  sufficient  prejudice . . . that course should be followed.”    466 U.S. at 697; accord Strouse v.  Leonardo, 928 F.2d 548, 556 (2d Cir. 1991).    We conclude that the state court did  not unreasonably apply Strickland in determining that Simons’s conduct was not  prejudicial,  i.e.,  in  finding  that  Waiters  failed  to  demonstrate  that  it  was  reasonably likely that calling a medical expert would have changed the outcome  of  his  trial. 22     See  Carrion,  549  F.3d  at  588  (noting  that  a  petitioner  must  defense  “’opens  the  door’  on  the  issue  in  question”).    Moreover,  seeking  an  adjournment  to  obtain  a  medical  expert  would  have  afforded  the  prosecution  time  to  seek  additional  evidence  concerning  Waiters’s  capacity  to  form  intent.    The  record  does not permit a conclusion regarding why exactly Simons chose not to call an expert.    The existence of plausible explanations, however, bears on the question (which we need  not  resolve)  whether  Waiters  satisfied  his  burden  of  establishing  Strickland’s  first  prong—that Simons’s performance was deficient.    See Cardoza, 731 F.3d at 178 (noting  petitioner’s “ultimate burden” of establishing that his rights were violated).    22   The  dissent  maintains  that  the  state  trial  court’s  ruling  on  prejudice  is  ambiguous and therefore unworthy of deference.    We disagree.    The dissent relies on  a single sentence at the conclusion of the trial court’s decision, which states that “having  viewed the evidence first hand, there is a little doubt the claims raised by the defendant  would  have  served  to  change  the  jury’s  verdict.”    Appellant’s  App’x  at  56.    Read  in  context,  however,  the  trial  court  plainly  did  not  intend  to  suggest  the  existence  of  prejudice,  but  rather  inadvertently  added  an  “a”  and  omitted  a  “not”  (emblematic  of  several other typos in its opinion).    Thus, earlier in the decision, the trial court clearly  affirmed that “Dr. Stripp, called for the purpose of this hearing, could not establish that  the  defendant’s  blood  alcohol  level  was  such  that  his  intent  to  commit  the  crime  was  negated.”    Id.    Further,  in  the  sentences  that  immediately  precede  the  offending  clause,  the  district  court  made  clear  that  “[t]rial  counsel’s  conduct  did  not  constitute  egregious  or  prejudicial  conduct.  .  .  .    The  evidence  presented  establish[ed]  the  28  “‘affirmatively  prove  prejudice  arising  from  counsel’s  allegedly  deficient  representation’” (quoting United States v. Cohen, 427 F.3d 164, 167 (2d Cir. 2005))).    Accordingly, the district court erred in holding otherwise and in granting habeas  relief.  II      A. Waiters’s Burden  To  establish  prejudice  under  Strickland,  a  habeas  petitioner  must  demonstrate  “a  reasonable  probability  that,  but  for  counsel’s  unprofessional  errors,  the  result  of  the  proceeding  would  have  been  different.”23    Greiner  v.  defendant  received  a  fair  trial  with  the  benefit  of  effective  representation.”    Id.    Indeed,  even  the  district  court  recognized  that  the  trial  court  “found  there  was  no  testimony  establishing  that  medical  testimony  about  Waiters’s  level  of  intoxication  would  have  changed  the  jury’s  finding.”    Id.  at  15.    With  respect,  the  dissent  obfuscates the record.    23  Puzzlingly, the dissent relies on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and not  on  Strickland,  to  argue  its  case,  apparently  on  the  theory  that  if  the  prosecution  had  suppressed  the  medical  evidence,  we  would  surely  agree  that  prejudice  had  been  established.    But  the  prosecution  did  not  suppress  the  evidence,  and  so  this  is  not  a  counterfactual  we  need  (or  should)  address.    The  Strickland  prejudice  inquiry  partly  “finds its roots in the test for materiality of exculpatory information not disclosed to the  defense  by  the  prosecution.”    Strickland,  466  U.S.  at  694.    But  the  dissent  errs  in  concluding  that  Brady  and  Strickland  prejudice  are,  as  a  result,  necessarily  identical  in  their  application.    As  our  learned  predecessor  astutely  observed,  “words  are  chameleons, which reflect the color of their environment,” Commissioner v. Nat’l Carbide  Corp., 167 F.2d 304, 306 (2d Cir. 1948) (L. Hand, J.), such that “identical language may  convey  varying  content,”  Yates  v.  United  States,  135  S.  Ct.  1074,  1082  (2015).    Thus,  rather  than  look  to  a  body  of  case  law  separate  from  that  which  governs  the  claim  at  issue  here,  we  conclude  that  under  well‐established  precedent  specific  to  29  Wells, 417 F.3d 305, 319 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694); see also  Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 (explaining that the deficient performance must be “so  serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable”).    “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in  the  outcome,”  Strickland,  466  U.S.  at  694,  and  thus  the  chance  of  an  alternate  result must be “’substantial,’ not just ‘conceivable,’” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S.  170, 189 (2011) (quoting Richter, 562 U.S. at 112); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693  (explaining  that  the  required  level  of  prejudice  falls  between  the  deficiencies  having  “some  conceivable  effect”  and  “more  likely  than  not  alter[ing]  the  outcome  in  the  case”).    Moreover,  we  have  said  that  where  a  conviction  is  “supported by overwhelming evidence of guilt,” habeas relief on the ground of  ineffective  assistance  is  generally  not  warranted.    Lindstadt  v.  Keane,  239  F.3d  191,  204  (2d  Cir.  2001);  see  also  United  States  v.  Hasan,  586  F.3d  161,  170  (2d  Cir.  2009)  (denying  habeas  relief  on  this  basis).    This  is  because  a  verdict  or  conclusion with ample record support is less likely to have been affected by the  errors  of  counsel  than  “a  verdict  or  conclusion  only  weakly  supported  by  the  record.”    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.        Strickland—and  particularly  to  claims  raised  in  a  § 2254(d)  petition—the  state  trial  court’s  determination  that  Simons’s  conduct  did  not  prejudice  Waiters’s  defense  was  not objectively unreasonable.        30  Waiters’s  theory  of  prejudice  hinges  on  New  York  Penal  Law  § 15.25,  which  provides  that  “evidence  of  intoxication  of  the  defendant  may  be  offered  whenever  it  is  relevant  to  negative  an  element  of  the  crime  charged.”    Intoxication, however, “is not, as such, a defense to a criminal charge,” People v.  Sirico,  17  N.Y.3d  744,  745  (2011)  (quoting  N.Y.  Penal  Law  §  15.25),  and  “the  general rule is that an intoxicated person can form the requisite intent to commit  a  crime,”  People  v.  Alston,  42  A.D.3d  468,  469  (2d  Dep’t  2007)  (quoting  People  v.  LaGuerre, 29 A.D.3d 820, 822 (2d Dep’t 2006)).24    Under New York law, “it is for  the  trier  of  fact  to  decide  if  the  extent  of  the  intoxication  acted  to  negate  the  element  of  intent.”    Id.  (quoting  LaGuerre,  29  A.D.3d  at  822).    And  while  a  “relatively  low  threshold”  exists  to  demonstrate  entitlement  to  an  intoxication  charge, even a charge may not be warranted, despite the defendant’s substantial  use  of  intoxicants  at  the  time  of  an  alleged  crime,  where  “the  uncontradicted  record evidence . . . supports the conclusion that his overall behavior on the day  of the incident was purposeful.”    Sirico, 17 N.Y.3d at 746; see also People v. Beaty,  22  N.Y.3d  918,  921  (2013)  (noting  no  intoxication  charge  was  warranted,  even  24   The  question  is  thus  not,  as  the  dissent  suggests,  whether  Waiters  was  extremely intoxicated, whether his intoxication affected his aim, or even whether he had  a diminished ability to form the requisite intent.    Rather, it is whether, with the benefit  of  the  disputed  evidence,  there  is  a  reasonable  probability  that  the  jury  would  have  found that Waiters’s intoxication rendered his actions unintended.    31  though  the  defendant  might  have  consumed  alcohol  before  committing  the  crimes  alleged,  where  “the  evidence  established  that  [the]  defendant’s  conduct  was purposeful”).    All the charges of which Waiters was found guilty required specific intent.    See N.Y. Penal Law §§ 125.25(1) (requiring “intent to cause the death of another  person”),  110.00  (requiring  “intent  to  commit  a  crime”),  120.10(1)  (requiring  “intent  to  cause  serious  physical  injury  to  another  person”).25    Waiters  thus  contends  that  there  is  a  reasonable  probability  that,  but  for  his  attorney’s  allegedly  deficient  performance—as  is  relevant  here,  Simons’s  failure  to  call  a  medical  expert—the  jury  would  not  have  found  that  Waiters  harbored  the  requisite intent to commit his crimes.    He further contends, as he must, that the  state  court’s  conclusion  to  the  contrary  was  sufficiently  unreasonable  such  that  “there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree.”    See Richter, 562 U.S.  at 102.    For the following reasons, Waiters is incorrect.        25  The charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, which the  jury  did  not  reach,  did  not  require  specific  intent.    See  N.Y.  Penal  Law  § 265.01(1);  People  v.  Parrilla,  27  N.Y.3d  400,  405  (2016)  (indicating  that  a  defendant  “need  only  knowingly possess a firearm” to violate the statute).      32  B. Application  At  the  close  of  Waiters’s  trial,  based  on  both  witness  testimony  and  the  two  redacted  pages of  medical  records  that  the district  court  admitted,  the  jury  was  well  aware  that  Waiters  had  been  drinking  both  during  his  birthday  party  and  the  following  morning,  and  that  he  was  intoxicated  when  he  emptied  his  revolver  in  the  direction  of  Warren’s  family.    The  jury  was  also  privy  to  evidence  indicating  that  Waiters’s  intoxication  had  not  rendered  him  incapable  of  purposeful  action,  including  testimony  documenting  his  actions  and  conversations  on  the  morning  of  the  incident,  and  his  subsequent  admission  to  Warren  that  he  had  targeted  Lorenzo  because  Lorenzo  was  “coming  between”  them.    Trial  Tr.  at  421.    On  the  basis  of  this  evidence,  while  the  jury  was  instructed on intoxication, it found Waiters guilty of murder, attempted murder,  and assault.      We are not persuaded that, had the jury also heard from a medical expert  and  reviewed  the  full  set  of  medical  records,  there  is  a  sufficiently  strong  probability  that  it  would  have  found  differently  such  that  the  state  trial  court’s  determination  to  the  contrary  was  unreasonable.    While  such  evidence  could  have  been  proffered,  it  would  not  likely  have  made  a  difference  in  light  of  the  33  strong, specific testimonial evidence indicating that Waiters formed the requisite  intent to commit his crimes.    See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696; Lindstadt, 239 F.3d at  204.  Dr.  Stripp’s  testimony  and  the  medical  records  offer  support  for  two  propositions.    First,  they  demonstrate  that  Waiters  was  intoxicated  and  had  a  BAC of 0.39, which the hospital deemed “critical,” Appellant’s App’x at 76—and  which was potentially life threatening—approximately an hour after the incident.    Second,  Dr.  Stripp’s  testimony  establishes  that  a  0.39  BAC  causes  significant  physical  and  mental  impairment  in  the  average  person,  and  of  a  sort  associated  with  the  incapacity  for  purposeful  conduct  (encompassing,  for  instance,  blackouts and amnesia).      However,  the  critical  deficiency  of  this  evidence—a  deficiency  which  the  dissent notably omits to discuss—is that it does not establish how the 0.39 BAC  affected Waiters and, more specifically, whether it undermined his ability to form  intent.    As Dr. Stripp testified, there is “very significant individual[] variation”  among individual responses to alcohol because of variances in tolerance, which  is  “one  of  the  most  important  considerations  when  interpreting  [BAC].”    Id.  at  68.    For this reason, Dr. Stripp made clear that he had no opinion as to whether  34  Waiters could have formed intent and that he could not say “when an individual  along the continuum of blood alcohol content los[es] the ability to form intent.”    Id. at 89.    Indeed, a “very tolerant drinker [can] have some level of functioning”  when intoxicated, id. at 82, to the extent that an individual with a very high BAC  can, despite bad judgment, still form specific intent.      The  evidence  here  suggests  that  Waiters  possessed  such  tolerance.    Warren  testified  that  Waiters  drank  every  day—behavior  that  Dr.  Stripp  explained results in alcohol tolerance—and Lorenzo maintained that he had seen  Waiters  intoxicated  “maybe  ten”  times,  Trial  Tr.  at  208,  and  that  Waiters  was  much more intoxicated on those days than he was during the incident.    The full  medical  records  likewise  indicate  that  Waiters  had  a  history  of  “alcohol  abuse  and  dependence,”  Suppl.  App’x  at  103,  consistent  with  Dr.  Stripp’s  testimony  regarding Waiters’s delirium, hallucinations, and abnormal liver function.      Further, to the extent that Waiters’s BAC has remaining significance, even  given that Waiters habitually abused alcohol and that Dr. Stripp could not opine  on the question whether Waiters’s intoxication negated his ability for purposeful  conduct, it is still overshadowed, in this case, by the specific testimonial evidence  of Waiters’s ability to carry out purposeful acts prior to, and during, the incident.    35  That  morning,  Waiters  (a)  purchased  cereal  and  milk  for  Warren’s  family,  an  errand  which  necessarily  involved  purposeful  travel  and  conducting  a  transaction; (b) argued with Warren when she took a bottle of alcohol from him;  (c) obtained a revolver and had the presence of mind to hide it under a jacket; (d)  argued with, and taunted, Lorenzo while making oblique references to his gun;  (e) aimed and fired his revolver at Lorenzo, striking him in the thigh; (f) put his  gun to Derrick’s head and pulled the trigger;  (g) attempted to flee the scene; (h)  continued  taunting  Lorenzo  while  he  struggled  with  him  on  the  floor;  and  (i)  asked  Warren  for  help  during  that  struggle.    Collectively,  these  actions  tend  strongly to demonstrate that Waiters retained the ability to identify a conscious  purpose  and  to  act  on  that  purpose,  the  intent  necessary  for  conviction.    Cf.  Beaty,  22  N.Y.3d  at  921  (finding  that  an  intoxication  charge  was  not  warranted  because evidence that the defendant “cut a hole in a screen to gain entry [into a  house], instructed the victim to be quiet, threw a blanket over her head, and stole  her  cell  phone  so  she  could  not  call  the  police”  had  “established  that  [the]  defendant’s conduct was purposeful”); People v. Saavedra, 39 A.D.3d 316, 317 (1st  Dep’t  2007)  (concluding  that  the  “[d]efendant’s  intent  to  cause  serious  physical  injury could be readily inferred from his actions, and there was no evidence that  36  he  was  so  intoxicated  as  to  be  unable  to  form  the  requisite  intent”  where  the  defendant  “observed  his  friend  fighting  with  [an]  unarmed  victim,  [and  thereafter] went to his car and obtained a knife with which he repeatedly stabbed  the victim in the back” (citation omitted)).  Waiters’s own description of the events of that morning corroborates this  understanding of his mental state.    According to Warren, Waiters admitted in a  Spring 2007 phone call that he was “aiming after” Lorenzo because Lorenzo was  “coming between” them.    Trial Tr. at 421.    Waiters appears, moreover, to have  reported  to  Dr.  Drob  and  to  Dr.  Bardey  both  that  he  retrieved  his  weapon  and  shot  it  intending  to  scare  Lorenzo  Warren  because  Waiters  felt  threatened,  and  that he did not feel intoxicated that morning at all.26    The evidence thus strongly  suggests  that  Waiters  had  the  ability  to  form  the  requisite  intent  to  commit  his  crimes.    Cf. People v. Natal, 100 A.D. 3d 509, 509 (1st Dep’t 2012) (finding that the  defendant’s  “oral  and  videotaped  post[‐]arrest  statements,  as  well  as  the  observations  of  the  responding  police  officers,”  “supported  the  trier  of  fact’s    As  noted  above,  while  Dr.  Drob  and  Dr.  Bardey  were  not  called  at  trial,  the  26 record suggests that, were the full medical records admitted through the testimony of a  medical expert, the prosecution would have sought to introduce evidence of Waiters’s  statements to the doctors.      37  determination that although intoxicated, [the] defendant had the intent to cause  serious physical injury when he stabbed the victim in the chest”).  In  reaching  a  different  conclusion,  the  district  court  relied  heavily  (as  the  dissent  does)  on  the  theory  that  evidence  of  Waiters’s  BAC  and  its  possible  effects  would  have  enabled  Simons  to  “fend  off”  the  prosecution’s  summation  argument that there was no evidence indicating that Waiters was so intoxicated  that he could not form the requisite intent.    Appellant’s App’x at 23.    While the  evidence  in  question  would  certainly  have  supported  a  response  to  this  prosecution argument, however, it does nothing to reduce the persuasiveness of  other central elements in the prosecutor’s closing, including Warren’s testimony  that  Waiters  admitted  to  her  that  he  purposefully  shot  at  Lorenzo.    As  recounted  by  the  prosecution  in  summation,  Waiters  admitted  to  Warren,  in  “‘black and white,” that he “wanted to eliminate [Lorenzo] for coming between  [them].”    Trial  Tr.  at  642.    Moreover,  we  also  do  not  presume  that  the  prosecution’s summation would have been identical had Simons introduced the  medical  evidence  on  which  Waiters  relies.    Rather,  the  prosecution  would,  in  that scenario, have emphasized the remaining evidence in the record—evidence  that, in any event, the prosecution did reference in its summation—which offered  38  substantial and unrebutted support for the proposition that Waiters did intend to  shoot Lorenzo Warren, regardless of his BAC.      In  this  vein,  the  central  intoxication  case  the  district  court  cites,  Miller  v.  Terhune,  510  F.  Supp.  2d  486  (E.D.  Cal.  2007),  is  unavailing. 27     First,  the  ineffectiveness of the defendant’s attorney in Terhune was not limited to a failure  to investigate—or to call an expert to testify about—the effect of the defendant’s  intoxication, but rather included a failure even to seek an intoxication instruction  or  pursue  an  intoxication‐based  defense  in  the  first  place.    See  id.  at  491,  502.    Here, the jury was instructed on intoxication and Simons argued the point in his  summation, yet the jury still voted to convict.    Second, in Miller, the expert that  defense  counsel  could  have  called  clearly  opined  that  the  defendant’s  cognitive  27 The  remaining  cases  Waiters  cites  in  his  appellate  brief  on  this  issue  are  also  unpersuasive because the circumstances at issue in those cases bear little resemblance to  those at issue here.    See Cox v. Donnelly, 387 F.3d 193, 197–99 (2d Cir. 2004) (ineffective  assistance for failure to object to unconstitutional intent instruction); Davis v. Strack, 270  F.3d  111,  131–32  (2d  Cir.  2001)  (violation  of  due  process  stemming  from  failure  to  provide  justification  charge);  Lindstadt,  239  F.3d  at  194,  199–205  (finding,  in  a  case  of  “underwhelming  evidence,”  that  defense  counsel’s  “ineffectiveness”—(a)  failure  to  identify  a  clear  factual  discrepancy  that  would  have  provided  “something  akin  to  an  alibi”; (b) failure to effectively challenge “the only physical evidence” of the defendant’s  crimes; (c) an opening statement which “assured that, before [the defendant] opened his  mouth to testify, he admitted that the prosecution has made its case”; and (d) failure to  make  an  “obvious  point”  that  demonstrated  the  relevance  of  the  testimony  of  two  probation  officers,  the  only  witnesses  who  could  corroborate  the  defense—was  prejudicial).    39  abilities were sufficiently impaired to negate his intent to kill, id. at 491, 504–05,  whereas here Dr. Stripp refused to draw any such conclusion.      In  short,  we  cannot  say  that  the  state  trial  court’s  ruling—that  Waiters’s  defense was not prejudiced by Simons’s conduct—was objectively unreasonable.    This  is  not  a  case  where  Dr.  Stripp’s  testimony  and  the  full  medical  records  would  have  so  clearly  “alter[ed]  the  entire  evidentiary  picture”  that  the  trial  court’s  decision  is  indefensible.    Strickland,  466  U.S.  at  696.    Rather,  the  strong  evidence of intent here places the trial court’s ruling firmly within the bounds of  “fairminded disagreement.”    Richter, 562 U.S. at 103.    Therefore, in light of the  deferential  standard  of  review,  we  conclude  that  the  district  court  erred  in  granting Waiters’s petition.      *  *  *  With respect to the other grounds for habeas relief that Waiters identifies,  namely  Simons’s  alleged  failure  to  (a)  ask  that  the  jury  be  charged  on  second‐degree  manslaughter,  and  (b)  impeach  Warren  with  prior  inconsistent  statements,  we  do  not  address  them  here  because  the  district  court  did  not  consider  them  below.    Cf.  DiSimone  v.  Phillips,  461  F.3d  181,  198  (2d  Cir.  2006)  (remanding  habeas  case  for  consideration  of  a  question  that  had  “not  to  date  40  been  the  focus  of  attention  in  the  courts  that .  .  .  reviewed  [the  defendant’s]  case”);  United  States  v.  Tarricone,  21  F.3d  474,  476  (2d  Cir.  1993)  (refusing  to  consider  ineffective  assistance  claim  because  the  government  introduced  additional  facts  that  the  Court  determined  “should  be  evaluated  by  the  district  court  in  the  first  instance”).    We  instead  remand  so  that  the  district  court  may  consider  the  remaining  aspects  of  Waiters’s  ineffective  assistance  allegations  in  the first instance, consistent with the analysis herein.  CONCLUSION  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  VACATE  the  district  court’s  grant  of  Waiters’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and REMAND the case for further  proceedings consistent with this opinion.  41  DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. At a family gathering the morning after his birthday party, defendant General Waiters shot at the son of his girlfriend; but, shooting wildly, he wounded his target, hit three others, and killed two, including a toddler. He did this in a drunken rage. He is not entitled to much indulgence; but he was entitled to a fair trial. He did not get one because his counsel failed to arrange entry into evidence of a hospital record showing his blood alcohol at a potentially lethal level. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.) granted a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective, that prejudice was established, and that the constitutional violation survives such deference as is owed to the rulings of the state court. The two elements of ineffectiveness under the federal Constitution are deficient performance by counsel below and prejudice. The majority opinion goes on the assumption that “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth 1 Amendment,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), but reverses anyway on the ground that the showing of prejudice is insufficient to withstand the deference we owe to state courts in habeas cases. Because I vote to affirm, I need to consider counsel’s performance as well as prejudicial impact. I Defense counsel failed to adduce the only effective evidence in support of the only defense that was pressed on summation. Waiters’s only conceivable defense was lack of intent, and the only conceivable way he could show lack of intent was by alcohol impairment. The jury charge allowed the jury to consider the impact of alcohol on the question of intent; defense counsel on summation argued alcoholic impairment of intent; and the prosecution joined issue on that point at closing. On the issue of intoxication, defense counsel held a largely bad hand. The impairment defense was undercut at trial by the defendant’s girlfriend, whose family members were decimated by the gunfire. She testified that, on the morning of the shooting, she was drinking with him for half an hour but she could not say he had imbibed more than a single drink. Her son, whom Waiters 2 shot, testified that Waiters’s words were “a little bit slurred,” but also testified that he had seen Waiters “way worse” at least ten other times. This was the only testimony bearing on intoxication as the case went to the jury. The only hope of the defense (and a potent one) was a hospital record showing that Waiters’s blood alcohol content (“BAC”) was .39--five times the legal limit for driving; indicative (for a person of defendant’s 130 pounds) of sixteen drinks the morning of the shooting; and typically enough to cause “significant cognitive impairment” including “impairment on judgment,” “blackouts,” “amnestic effects” and “potentially even unconsciousness.” App’x at 81. And death. This was no mere incremental detail; it was powerful evidence of an otherwise forlorn defense. But defense counsel inexplicably never played that trump card. He did attempt to enter into evidence the defendant’s post-shooting hospital records, but the state trial court allowed in just two lines of them, and excluded the BAC number on the (valid) ground that expert testimony was needed to explain what it meant. The court was more than happy to give defense counsel time to find an expert to introduce and explain the BAC record, and everyone in the courtroom (except defense counsel) seemed to appreciate the import of that evidence: the 3 state trial judge repeatedly urged defense counsel to call an expert to introduce it, and the prosecution was willing to adjourn to allow the defense to find an expert. See infra at 14-15. Defense counsel dug in. When the court informed him that it would not allow the BAC information in unless he called an expert, defense counsel told the court he would not call any more witnesses. Thus the state trial court allowed into evidence just two lines of the medical records, both of which blandly observed that Waiters was “intoxicated.” Neither line included the BAC level, and neither line could answer the crucial question of whether Waiters’s intoxication was sufficient to impair intent. Defense counsel seemed not to understand how much more significant the .39 BAC was than the reference to his client as “intoxicated”: in the evidentiary colloquy with the state trial judge, he failed to zero in on that number; and at the post-conviction hearing, he would not agree that it signified that Waiters had been “very drunk.” App’x at 129. Unsurprisingly, the prosecutor’s closing statement on the intoxication defense focused on problems that would have been resolved by the BAC record. See infra at 9-10. 4 The refusal by defense counsel to introduce his only powerful piece of evidence is simply unaccountable. At trial, he offered no explanation. He seems not to have discussed the issue with his client before or during the evidentiary colloquy. At the hearing to vacate Waiters’s conviction under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, conducted by the same state trial judge, defense counsel could not recall why he let pass the offered opportunity to call an expert. A pity: I would be deeply curious to know. Without deciding the adequacy of counsel’s representation, the majority nevertheless posits several reasons why a lawyer might do what defense counsel did here. None of it washes. It is true that cross-examination of the expert would elicit the concession that Waiters probably built up resistance by long-term alcohol abuse. But every piece of evidence is subject to cross-examination and attack. As Judge Gleeson observed: No reasonable defense attorney would opt to keep the jury ignorant of Waiters’s astronomically high BAC on the off chance that it might not be astronomical enough . . . Trial counsel’s decision simply was not a tactical choice; it was incompetence. App’x at 20, 22. The majority also speculates that defense counsel may have been afraid to ask for an adjournment because that would have given the prosecution time to 5 seek additional evidence of Waiters’s intent. But the majority does not extend that speculation to come up with any particular piece of evidence the prosecution might have sought out. I can’t come up with one either. The majority opinion further posits that the expert testimony might open the door to statements Waiters made to psychological evaluators, in which he denied that he had been drunk at the time of the shooting (and the state trial judge made a similar point).1 But the effect of the admissions is easy to discount. Many drunks profess perfect sobriety, and no rational juror would credit an individual’s statement that he was sober over scientific evidence that he had sixteen drinks in the prior hour. II The majority opinion relies solely on its conclusion that the showing of prejudice was insufficient even to establish a “reasonable probability” that the 1 After the post-trial hearing, the state trial court noted that introducing the .39 BAC into evidence would be inconsistent with Waiters’s own protestations that he was sober the morning of the shooting. It may be that a defense lawyer is not obligated to argue an intoxication defense when his client denies being drunk; but once defense counsel chooses to argue a defense (and intoxication was the only defense he argued on summation), he has an obligation to do so effectively. 6 outcome would have been different--i.e., that the jury might have acquitted, or hung, or convicted on a lesser charge, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695--and that in any event we owe deference to the state trial court’s ruling after the post-trial hearing. Consider how the prosecution would fare in this case if it had withheld from the defense a document showing that, one hour after the shooting, the defendant had enough alcohol in his blood to kill a normal person. The prejudice would be seen as obvious and the effect palpable. As a matter of law, the result here can be no different. The standard for gauging prejudice in a case of ineffectiveness is derived from Brady, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and the Supreme Court has told us that the standard for assessing prejudice is the same in Brady claims as in claims for ineffectiveness.2 Tellingly, the majority opinion does not assert that it would reach the same finding on prejudice if the Strickland and Brady standards were the same. Instead 2 Compare Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 289 (1999) (holding that prejudice under Brady requires a “‘reasonable probability’ that the result of the trial would have been different”) with Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) (explaining that the test for prejudice in ineffective assistance claims is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” and that the prejudice test in ineffectiveness cases “finds its roots in the test for materiality of exculpatory information not disclosed to the defense by the prosecution”). 7 (proceeding by footnote), the majority opinion agrees that the Strickland standard derives from the Brady standard and uses the same words, but holds that the two standards are somehow different. In doing so, it cites no relevant law, and splits from published decisions by every other circuit in the country.3 3 See Ruiz v. United States, 339 F.3d 39, 43 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Brady claims are subject to the same prejudice requirement as ineffective-assistance claims”); Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 85 n.37 (3d Cir. 2002) (“the Strickland prejudice standard is the same as the Brady materiality standard”); United States v. Higgs, 663 F.3d 726, 735 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[t]he standard for Strickland prejudice is the same as for Brady materiality”); Felder v. Johnson, 180 F.3d 206, 214 (5th Cir. 1999) (“the standard for prejudice under Strickland is identical to the standard for materiality under Brady” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Moreland v. Robinson, 813 F.3d 315, 330 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Strickland and Brady claims use the same ‘reasonable probability’ standard to assess prejudice”); Harris v. Thompson, 698 F.3d 609, 645 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[w]hen a defendant is deprived of favorable evidence, the same ‘reasonable probability’ standard applies to determining materiality under Brady and . . . to determining whether the accused was prejudiced for the purposes of Strickland”); Clay v. Bowersox, 367 F.3d 993, 1000 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[t]he materiality standard under Brady is the same as the prejudice standard under Strickland”); United States v. Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172, 1187 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Brady materiality and Strickland prejudice are the same”); Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Brady's prejudice inquiry is equivalent to the prejudice analysis that applies to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland”); Jennings v. McDonough, 490 F.3d 1230, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[t]he prejudice prong of Strickland incorporates the same standard used for assessing the materiality of evidence under Brady”); United States v. Baxter, 761 F.3d 17, 24 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing Montgomery v. Bobby, 654 F.3d 668, 679 n. 4 (6th Cir.2011) for the proposition that “[i]t is well settled that the test for prejudice under Brady and Strickland is the same.”). 8 Applying the Strickland standard (as derived from Brady), prejudice is clear because the evidence that Waiters had absorbed a potentially lethal intake of sixteen drinks was the vital corrective to Warren’s testimony that she had seen him have only one drink that morning in about half an hour. It is easy to conclude here, as we would in a Brady case, that the evidence the jury never got to see would have “alter[ed] the entire evidentiary picture,” such that acquittal was at least reasonably probable. Strickland 466 U.S. at 696.4 This was not lost on the prosecutor. In summation, the prosecution recalled testimony that one victim smashed an aquarium over Waiters’s head, and discounted the hospital note that Waiters was “intoxicated” with the rhetorical question: How are you able to tell intoxication from the effects of getting hit over the head with a fish aquarium? Who knows? 4 Waiters argues that his counsel was also ineffective for failing to impeach Warren on a crucial point. Her testimony that Waiters had had only one drink could have been impeached with her prior statement to the defendant’s investigator that Waiters drank a pint of liquor by himself that morning. “In evaluating prejudice, we look to the cumulative effect of all of counsel’s unprofessional errors,” and that error can only exacerbate the existing prejudice. Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588, 611 (2d Cir. 2005). The mandate in this case, which vacates and remands for consideration of this claim of ineffectiveness (and another), therefore leaves open the way to an ultimate ruling on remand that Waiters’s counsel was ineffective and that prejudice resulted. 9 Supp. App’x at 86-87. “Who knows?” The prosecutor knows. He knew that the excluded BAC information would establish not only that the impairment was due to alcohol, but that Waiters was so intoxicated he could have fallen over dead. The majority opinion advances two arguments to discount the possibility of an acquittal even if the BAC record had been allowed into evidence with an expert explanation. First, the majority opinion claims that the jury was “well aware . . . that [Waiters] was intoxicated when he emptied his revolver in the direction of Warren’s family.” Maj. Op. at 33. A review of the record shows that there was actually very little evidence of Waiters’s intoxication before the jury when it went to deliberate. His girlfriend testified that her fight with Waiters began when she told him he had too much to drink, but (as set forth above) she also testified that she did not know whether he had more than one drink that morning, and her son testified that, though Waiters’s words were “a little bit slurred,” he had seen Waiters “way worse” at least ten other times. The only other evidence of intoxication was the two lines in the medical records saying that Waiters was “intoxicated.” But the prosecutor effectively attacked that 10 medical evidence as unreliable and imprecise in his closing statement. See supra at 9-10. None of that evidence would persuade a jury that Waiters was extremely intoxicated, as required for an intoxication defense. None of it has anything like the force of the BAC record, which (with an expert explanation) would prove that the 130-pound defendant must have had sixteen alcoholic drinks that morning before the shooting started. The majority opinion also considers that there was scant hope for an intent defense because Waiters did a number of voluntary acts that show self- possession: he bought milk and cereal; he got the gun; he concealed it on his person; he taunted his target with having it. But when he then shot, he barely wounded the target with whom he stood face to face, and he accidentally shot three others, two of them fatally. In other words, the evidence that Waiters was sober enough to act with intent was vulnerable. The evidence of intoxication that the jury saw did not approach the level deemed necessary in the jury charge (as set out in the margin).5 A jury that had 5 Supp. App’x at 88: 11 the most powerful evidence in Waiters’s favor--a jury that knew he had a .39 BAC and that was told what that meant--could easily conclude that he was profoundly under the influence, and had a diminished ability to form the requisite intent.6 III The majority opinion is understandably reluctant to hold on the merits that it was not at least “reasonably probable” that evidence of the defendant’s “Now, jurors, under our law, intoxication is not as such a defense to a criminal charge. But evidence of the defendant’s intoxication may be considered by you whenever it is relevant to negative an element of the crime charged. “So, in determining whether the defendant had the intent necessary to commit a crime, you may consider whether the defendant’s mind was affected by intoxicants to such a degree that he was incapable of forming the intent necessary for the commission of any of the crimes charged that I just submitted to you.” 6 The majority opinion also cites several New York state cases on the intoxication defense. None of them is relevant. The question here is not sufficiency of the evidence or entitlement to an intoxication charge; it is whether there is a “reasonable probability” that--if an expert had explained to the jury what a .39 BAC meant--the jurors would have convicted on the lesser charge, or acquitted, or hung. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. 12 prodigious intake might have changed the guilty verdict. Instead, the majority opinion leans on the concept of deference. First, it is of course true that ineffectiveness claims generally involve deference. But the deference due under Strickland is deference to the tactical choices made by defense counsel--the “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. That goes to the “ineffectiveness” prong of Strickland, not to prejudice. Since the majority opinion punts on ineffectiveness and relies solely on prejudice, Strickland deference thus does no work for it. See Hardy v. Chappell, 849 F.3d 803, 825 n.10 (9th Cir. 2016); Evans v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 703 F.3d 1316, 1334 (11th Cir. 2013) (Jordan, J., concurring) (“[it] makes no sense to say that initial judicial review as to whether prejudice resulted from counsel's deficient performance--on its own, before adding AEDPA deference-- involves any deference”).7 7 The majority goes as far as is prudent in suggesting (without holding) that “double deference” may be owed as to prejudice, i.e., deference (uncontroversially) to the trial court as well as deference (oddly) to the defense counsel. But I concede there is a circuit split on this, and that some other courts have made the same error. 13 Nor can the majority rely on deference to the state trial judge under AEDPA. The views of the trial judge are best manifested by her several efforts to focus defense counsel on the need to get an expert to give the testimony that would make admissible medical records containing the crucial .39 BAC. The judge went as far as she could go without committing advocacy: THE COURT: I would agree with [the prosecutor] that the best way would have been to get someone from the hospital to certainly interpret the records as to those limited issues. Quite frankly, I don’t know why, you know, someone wasn’t called or at the very least to get an assessment by the doctor who appeared, even if it was by the people, something that would assist. THE PROSECUTOR: Well, I’m not in a position of assisting [the defendant] your Honor. THE COURT: I understand that. Nor should you be. But I’m saying that [expert testimony] is possibly one way that it could have been rectified. THE PROSECUTOR: My position is it’s the only way, your Honor. What is [defense counsel] going to get up there and say? That this level means something? That this person’s observation is any better than any other person’s observation? That one person’s intox, what does it mean in a medical standpoint? Does it mean that he can’t form intent? I mean, this is all going to be speculation. What’s he going to do, testify? Then it becomes impossible for me to rebut. Nor should I have to. Again, you say it might be the better course. We’re still not under a time crunch here, Judge. It can be done. [] 14 THE COURT: So, if you’re seeking to have blood levels, the amount of ethanol alcohol in Mr. Waiters’s blood stream, then clearly there should be someone to explain it for the edification of the jury as to what, in fact, that would mean. Otherwise, there’s no point to seek to introduce those levels of ethanol alcohol in his blood stream. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, the defense at this point is not introducing any additional witnesses at this point. We would request that the Court permit all the information in, and we’re prepared for the Court to make its ruling based on the defense not presenting any additional witnesses at this time. THE COURT: May I see counsel at sidebar. (Off-the-record discussion held at the bench.) It’s the Court’s understanding that the defense is not going to be calling any medical witness in order to certainly enlighten the jury as to what the numbers mean contained in the medical records. Supp. App’x 68-69, 71-72. The majority opinion relies on the post-hearing conclusion of the state trial judge. She expressed her conclusion in a single clause, which does not help the majority at all: [T]here is a little doubt the claims raised by the defendant would have served to change the jury’s verdict. App’x at 56. That sentence is best read to reflect that the trial judge declined to rule on prejudice; after all, given her holding that defense counsel was effective, 15 she did not need to decide prejudice. The majority opinion, however, urges that this sentence is afflicted by a pair of typographical errors: if the indefinite article “a” is removed and the little word “not” is inserted at a likely spot, the finding would coincide with the view of the majority opinion. (The majority opinion justifies its rewrite on the ground that the state habeas opinion--to which it urges deference--is full of typos.) I think it is possible that the state trial judge did intend to say the opposite of what she wrote. The context is ambiguous. But surely it is odd to rewrite a sentence that is grammatically sound in order to make it say something else for the purpose of giving it deference. Finally, AEDPA deference does not mean that we use the rubber stamp. When a state court decision is unreasonable, we may grant habeas relief. Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 380 (2005). So even if the state court had held that there was no sufficient prejudice in this case, that decision would have been unreasonable for reasons I need not repeat. *** Defense counsel pursued an intoxication defense, but failed to introduce and explain evidence that his 130-pound client had sixteen alcoholic drinks 16 before committing the crime. He never provided a reason for his omission, and none is conceivable. It is at least reasonably probable that a jury, hearing such potent evidence, would develop reasonable doubt as to the element of intent. 17