Davis

MEMORANDUM **

The district court correctly found that the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that petitioner’s trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective did not constitute an “unreasonable application” of Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Strickland v. Washington creates a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). It does not require defense counsel to pursue every possible avenue of defense, so long as the choices made by the attorney might be the result of a reasonable tactical decision. Id. In this case, petitioner’s trial counsel introduced a great deal of impeachment evidence against Young, including prior felony convictions, incidents in which other individuals had attempted to shoot him (including one in which he refused to press a complaint against a particular individual for fear of retaliation), and use of his own girlfriend as a shield against the bullets.

Moreover, counsel did cross-examine Young about the lighting conditions in the room, the position of the shooter and Young’s girlfriend in the bed, and suggested…