Stanhope

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Gregory Stanhope raises two claims in his appeal from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. First, he contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to interview Donald Brammer before Brammer was called as a witness. Second, Stanhope argues that the government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose that it had entered into an agreement with Brammer whereby it allegedly promised Brammer lenity on charges brought against him in return for his testimony against Stanhope. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we recount them here only to the extent necessary to explain our rulings.

Stanhope’s ineffective assistance claim fails because he has not made the required showing of prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed 2d 674 (1984). While Brammer’s testimony that he was not with Stan-hope at all during the night of the crimes may have cast doubt on Stanhope’s credibility, even if Brammer had testified as Stanhope claims he expected — that he and Stanhope had been watching television in…