Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD

California prisoner Richard Louis Arnold Phillips appeals the district court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We conclude that Phillips has asserted a colorable claim that the combined prejudicial effect -of his counsel’s ineffective assistance, and the State’s presentation of false testimony regarding the existence of a plea agreement with its chief witness, requires setting aside the findings that rendered him eligible for a sentence of death. Accordingly, Phillips has established his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on those two claims, and we reverse in part and remand with instructions that the district court conduct such a hearing. We reject Phillips’s remaining claims for relief.

I. Background

A. Procedural History

Phillips was convicted on January 31, 1980 of the first degree murder of Bruce Bartulis, the attempted murder of Ronald Rose, two counts of robbery, and the personal use of a firearm in the commission of the crimes. The jury also found the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery to be true. On February 1, 1980, following the presentation of the penalty phase, the jurors returned a verdict of death. The California Supreme Court affirmed Phillips’s conviction on direct appeal, but reversed his death sentence. People v. Phillips, 41 Cal.3d 29 , 222 Cal.Rptr. 127 , 711 P.2d 423 (1985). After a second penalty-ghase trial, some twelve years after the initial verdict, Phillips was once again sentenced to death on March 13, 1992.

In the interim, from 1987 through 1990, Phillips filed four petitions seeking collateral relief in the Madera County Superior Court. Two of those petitions were denied following evidentiary hearings, and the other two were denied without hearings. Phillips presented all four petitions to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which denied relief. The California Supreme Court denied review of all four petitions.

On March 4, 1992, prior to being resen-tenced, Phillips filed a federal habeas corpus petition, raising only guilt-phase claims. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice on two grounds: that entertaining the petition would inter *971 fere with ongoing state criminal proceedings with respect to the sentence, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and that Phillips had not exhausted his state remedies. On May 26, 1995, some fifteen years after his conviction, we reversed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the extraordinary delay that Phillips had already experienced in seeking review of his constitutional claims justified consideration of his guilt-phase claims even though his death sentence was still under review in the California courts — and would be for another five years. Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir.1995).

Phillips thereafter filed an amended petition on July 15, 1996, alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, that the prosecution made knowing use of perjured testimony and failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, that the State destroyed evidence in bad faith, that he is factually innocent of capital murder, and that cumulative error prejudiced his trial. The State moved for summary dismissal, but its motion was denied on January 14, 1997. Phillips then filed two motions for an evidentiary hearing. The first was denied without prejudice on October 17, 1997, and the second was denied on July 13, 1998, along with Phillips’s habeas petition. This appeal followed. 1

B. Facts

A full statement of the facts developed at trial can be found in the original decision of the California Supreme Court affirming Phillips’s conviction on direct appeal. People v. Phillips, 41 Cal.3d 29 , 222 Cal.Rptr. 127 , 711 P.2d 423, 427-30 (1985). The following facts, taken from that opinion, are relevant for purposes of this habe-as appeal:

Phillips became involved in a large cocaine deal with Ronald Rose and Bruce Bartulis. Both Rose and Bartulis agreed to invest $25,000 each in order to purchase a significant amount of cocaine. Unable to produce the agreed upon amount of money, Rose ultimately gave Phillips a promissory note for $25,000. The amount apparently included funds to purchase housing insulation in addition to cocaine.

A few months later, Phillips informed Rose and Bartulis that he knew where to obtain stolen insulation. Phillips arranged to meet Rose at a gas station in Fresno, California, in order to exchange cash for the stolen insulation. Rose and Bartulis drove to the station in Rose’s 1977 Ranchero. Rose had an unloaded .44 magnum pistol in the vehicle, with some ammunition behind one of the seats. Phillips arrived at the station with his girlfriend, Sharon Colman. After meeting up with Rose and Bartulis, the four proceeded in two cars (Phillips and Colman in a Toyota; Rose and Bartulis in the Ranchero) to a *972 different location-a vacant lot off of the freeway. Before arriving at the lot, they all stopped at another gas station, where Phillips used the restroom.

Among other things, Colman testified to the following: After leaving the restroom, Phillips walked over to the Ranchero and borrowed matches, although during the time they had been living together (the past two months approximately), Phillips did not smoke. Once the four arrived at the vacant lot, Phillips got out of the Toyota and spoke for some time to Rose and Bartulis through the Ranchero driver-side window. At some point, she heard shots fired and as a result, she looked up and saw Phillips holding a gun. Phillips took Rose’s and Bartulis’s wallets which contained a total of $120 to $150 and brought them back to the car. He then set the Ranchero on fire using gasoline he obtained from the trunk of the Toyota. Rose, who was still alive, jumped out of the burning Ranchero. Upon realizing that Rose was still alive, Phillips drove the Toyota into Rose and hit him, also cracking the Toyota’s windshield. Upon first finding the wallets and again while driving away from the shootings, Phillips lamented not finding more money than he did.

Bartulis died at the scene, but Rose survived despite five gunshot wounds and severe burns. Deputies later found large amounts of burned currency in $100 denominations at the crime locale. Approximately one week later, after warrants were issued for their arrest, Phillips and Colman went to Salt Lake City where Colman had relatives. Phillips was apprehended a few months later by the FBI.

At trial, in addition to Colman’s testimony, Rose testified that he had limited memory of the shooting and never actually saw who fired the shots. He recalled that just prior to the gunshots Phillips was alone at the driver’s side window, that the shots came from the direction where Phillips was standing, and that Rose heard a male voice close to him while he was being searched.

Phillips’s counsel presented an alibi defense. Phillips testified at trial that he was being framed and that he had in fact been at a meeting in Sacramento and then at a disco during the time the crime was committed. Phillips claimed that he lent the Toyota to the “coordinator” of the cocaine purchase, Richard Graybill, who returned it to him damaged, and that he fled to Salt Lake City pursuant to an agreement with Graybill. Defense counsel presented no corroboration for Phillips’s alibi, claiming that Phillips feared reprisal if he divulged the identity of the people he had met with in Sacramento.

Phillips now concedes, as he did at his second penalty-phase trial, that his trial testimony was not only deeply unconvincing, but actually false, and that he was in fact present at the crime scene. He alleges that Bartulis was killed in a shoot-out. According to Phillips’s declaration, he fired his weapon at Rose and Bartulis only after “he heard the ‘click’ of a hammer going back on a revolver”; he also declares that he “found a large revolver in Rose’s hand after the shooting.” Phillips contends that Bartulis was killed not by his bullet but by Rose’s, and that he will be able to establish as much if given the opportunity to develop facts at an evidentiary hearing. In fact, Phillips argues that evidence currently available — and, more saliently, available to counsel at the time of trial — supports his contention that Bartulis was killed during a shoot-out. He further alleges that the key witness against him, Sharon Colman, and Madera County District Attorney David Minier both lied under oath about the existence and nature of a plea agreement under which Colman would receive lenient treatment in exchange for her tes *973 timony that Phillips not only killed Bartu-lis but that he did so in the course of a robbery, thus rendering Phillips eligible for the imposition of the death penalty. We discuss Phillips’s additional factual allegations, as they relate to his claims for relief, below.

II. Standard for Granting Evidentiary Hearing

On this appeal, Phillips asks that we direct the district court to afford him an evidentiary hearing on his constitutional claims. The standard governing such requests establishes a reasonably low threshold for habeas petitioners to meet. A habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if: (1) the allegations in his petition would, if proved, entitle him to relief; and (2) the state court trier of fact has not, after a full and fair hearing, reliably found the relevant facts. See, e.g., Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Jones, 114 F.3d at 1010; Smith v. McCormick, 914 F.2d 1153, 1170 (9th Cir.1990). “[W]here a petitioner raises a colorable claim [to relief], and where there has not been a state or federal hearing on this claim, we must remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.” Id. (quoting Harich v. Wainwright, 813 F.2d 1082, 1090 (11th Cir.1987)). In these circumstances, a petition may be dismissed without a hearing only when it consists solely of conclusory, unsworn statements unsupported by any proof or offer thereof. Coleman v. McCormick, 874 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc).

III. Procedural Issues

A. Applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)

It is undisputed that AEDPA’s substantive provisions do not apply to this appeal. The Supreme Court has held that AEDPA’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 apply only to cases filed after April 24, 1996, the statute’s effective date. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); see also Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1495-96 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Phillips filed his original federal petition on March 4, 1992. Following the district court’s dismissal of that petition, we reversed and remanded, and Phillips filed the instant amended petition on July 15, 1996. In these circumstances, we treat Phillips’s amended petition — filed after AEDPA’s effective date — as part of his earlier, erroneously dismissed petition, and apply preAEDPA law. See Williams v. Calderon, 83 F.3d 281, 285 (9th Cir.1996). 2

B. Exhaustion of State Remedies

As the district court noted in its order denying the State’s motion for summary dismissal, portions of Phillips’s *974 claims have not been presented to the California Supreme Court, and thus Phillips’s petition is, at first glance, a “mixed” one. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). However, the district court correctly concluded that Phillips’s claims were nonetheless exhausted because “a return to state court for exhaustion would be futile.” As the Supreme Court has made clear, the exhaustion requirement applies “only to remedies still available at the time of the federal petition!” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 , 125-26 n. 28, 102 S.Ct. 1558 , 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982). “[I]n determining whether a remedy for a particular constitutional claim is ‘available,’ the federal courts are authorized, indeed required, to assess the likelihood that a state court will accord the habeas petitioner a hearing on the merits of his claim.” Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 268 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring).

The district court determined that the California courts would not afford Phillips a hearing on the merits of his unexhausted claims, and therefore held that Phillips had satisfied the exhaustion requirement. The State does not challenge that ruling on appeal.

C. Cause and Prejudice

Phillips is not entitled to a hearing in the district court on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim — specifically, the claim regarding his counsel’s failure to present a “shoot-out” defense, see infra Part III — unless he demonstrates both cause for his failure to develop this claim in state court and resulting prejudice therefrom. See Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 1715 , 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992). The State and the dissent do not contest prejudice but assert that Phillips has not shown “cause.”

The State in its brief argues that Phillips cannot establish “cause” because he did not present the particular ineffective assistance of counsel claim in either of the two state evidentiary hearings that were conducted. The State fails, however, to address Phillips’s subsequent request for a hearing on this specific claim or the state court’s failure to afford him the requested hearing. It simply states on several occasions that Phillips failed to develop the facts at one of the earlier hearings. Significantly, the State fails to identify any procedural rule that might have justified a refusal to grant Phillips’s request for a hearing at which he could develop separately the facts regarding the “shoot-out” claim. 3

The dissent essentially makes the same error. It, too, fails to recognize during its basic analysis of the issue that the state court expressly denied Phillips’s request to develop facts related to the “shoot-out” ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The State, however, did deny Phillips’s express request for a hearing on the “shoot-out” claim and, under Ninth Circuit precedent, the state court’s denial of that hearing is sufficient for Phillips to show “cause”:

Correll v. Stewart) 137 F.3d 1404, 1413 (9th Cir.1998).

Oddly, the dissent relies heavily on another part of Correll that discusses a different claim than is discussed in the quoted passage. As to that other claim, the petitioner failed completely to ask for an evidentiary hearing in state court on the ground on which he later sought a hearing in federal court. Accordingly, Correll held the other claim barred, unlike the claim as to which an evidentiary hearing ivas requested. Here, Phillips specifically asked the state court for a hearing on the identical issue now before us and the state court denied his request. Thus, the portion of Correll quoted above is both applicable and dispositive.

Subsequently, the dissent, in an attempt to avoid the dispositive effect of Correll , argues that Phillips should have presented the “shoot-out” ineffective assistance of counsel claim at one of the earlier hearings. 4 Our dissenting colleague appears to be hinting at the possibility of a procedural bar to Phillips’s claim, although like the State he relies on no particular state rule. The reason for this is evident. As we noted earlier, the state court, in its order denying Phillips’s request for a hearing on his shoot-out-based claim, did not rely on any procedural bar. It is true that at the time of Phillips’s request California had certain procedural rules governing both the timeliness of claims on collateral appeal and the filing of successive petitions, but the state court did not cite to any of them. Moreover, even if the state court had relied on one or more such rules, none of them constituted an independent and adequate state ground barring federal review at the time Phillips made his request for a hearing; and the district court so ruled, in a holding that the State does not contest on appeal. In issuing its ruling, the district court simply followed our precedent. This court has previously held in opinions controlling here that California applied both its timeliness rules and its rules governing successive petitions in an inconsistent manner during the time period pertinent to Phillips’s proceedings. See Morales v. Calderon, 85 F.3d 1387, 1391-93 (9th Cir.1996); Siripongs v. Calderon, 35 F.3d 1308, 1317-18 (9th Cir.1994). Any *976 intimation of a procedural bar to federal review of Phillips’s claim is therefore wholly without merit.

Because Phillips was not barred from receiving a state court hearing on his “shoot-out” ineffective assistance of counsel claim by any regularly applied state rule, and because the state court orders offered no reason for the refusal to afford Phillips the evidentiary hearing he requested, the State’s denial of an evidentia-ry hearing with respect to Phillips’s claim constitutes “cause” under Correll . Accordingly, we proceed to the merits of the claims.

IV. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Phillips contends that his trial counsel, Paul Martin, rendered ineffective assistance by presenting his patently meritless alibi defense to the jury without investigating any other defenses' — notably, the defense that Bartulis was killed during a shoot-out — and that “effective trial counsel in a capital case cannot allow his client to decide without adequate advice upon a hopeless alibi defense which counsel believes is false.” Because there has been no state court hearing on Phillips’s ineffectiveness claim, “the only question is whether [Phillips] raises a ‘colorable’ claim of ineffective assistance.” Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir.1998). In other words, to obtain an evidentiary hearing, Phillips’s allegations, if proved, must raise a colorable claim that his counsel’s performance fell below reasonable standards, as well as a colorable claim that, but for counsel’s ineffective performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. To put this appeal in perspective, Phillips does not contend that effective counsel would have secured him an acquittal on the basic charges, but rather that, had a “shoot-out” defense been presented at trial, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would not have found him eligible for the death penalty— as it did when it found him guilty of first degree murder with the special circumstance of having committed that murder during the commission of a robbery. In short, Phillips does not contend that he could not have been convicted on a murder charge, but only that he could not have been found to be death-eligible.

A. Deficient Performance

Phillips alleges that Martin “knew or should have known that an uncorroborated alibi defense was hopeless because there was overwhelming credible evidence that Phillips was the shooter, Phillips’s testimony made no rational sense, and Phillips would destroy his credibility by wrongfully refusing to answer questions on cross-examination.” Despite what Phillips characterizes as the “hopeless” nature of his asserted alibi defense, Phillips alleges that Martin did not confront him with the obvious deficiencies in his story because Martin had not investigated the facts of the shooting and therefore did not know that there was a viable alternative defense: that Bartulis had been killed in a shootout, probably unintentionally, by Rose. Rather,. Martin simply provided Phillips with copies of the police reports and asked him for his version of events.

Martin’s ineffectiveness is underscored, Phillips contends, by evidence that was in Martin’s possession prior to trial, as well as evidence that was easily discoverable, that would have supported the “shoot-out” defense. That evidence consists of: (1) .autopsy photographs of Bartulis that show the bullet’s trajectory and demonstrate that Phillips could not have fired the fatal shot from where Rose and Colman testified that he was standing, and a declaration by Madera County Sheriff / Coroner *977 Edward Bates that supports that conclusion; (2) a police report stating that Col-man, the State’s principal witness, had told one Dr. ReVille that “both parties shot at each other at the same time, shooting out the window shield on [Phillips’s] Toyota;” (3) a taped police interview in which Col-man said that immediately after the shooting, Phillips reached into the victims’ truck and retrieved Rose’s gun, thus demonstrating that Phillips knew Rose had a gun and that the gun was accessible rather than hidden; (4) evidence that Graybill, who Phillips contends was present during the shooting, told his companion Tamera Nichols that a “business deal had gone sour” and that “all of a sudden both parties just started shooting each other,” and (5) evidence that Graybill told Gary Bishop, another associate of Phillips’s, that Graybill had been present at the crime scene and that “all hell broke loose” and Phillips had been “lucky to survive.” 5

Phillips’s argument is that a reasonably competent attorney who had access to the above-listed evidence would have recognized the viability of a “shoot-out” defense and discussed that option with his client. He has strong support for that assertion from an unlikely source: Martin himself. During a state-court evidentiary hearing in January, 1990, Martin testified that he “would have considered putting on an alternative defense of self-defense and mutual shoot-out if [he] had Colman’s December 28, 1977, statement and the police report indicating Colman had told Dr. Re-Ville that there had been a mutual shootout.” In fact, Martin did have that evidence, and the state habeas court made a finding of fact to that effect. Based in part on that finding, Phillips raised his current claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that Martin was ineffective for not using the materials in his possession in support of a “shoot-out” defense, and instead presenting a defense he knew had no chance of success. Martin then submitted a declaration, less than a year later, in which he recanted his earlier testimony and insisted that even if he had been aware of the evidence in his case file, he would not have considered an alternative defense.

Martin’s original statement in the state evidentiary hearing was presented in support of a due process claim challenging the State’s alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence — a claim that in no way implicated his effectiveness as a lawyer. His subsequent declaration, in contrast, was prepared in response to Phillips’s newly asserted ineffective assistance of counsel claim; in the same declaration, Martin asserted: “I did not render Phillips ineffective assistance at trial.” Because the district court denied Phillips’s petition without a hearing, Martin has never been called upon to testify under oath regarding his contradictory statements; nor has he ever been examined regarding the nature of his consultations with Phillips on this issue.

Equally troubling is Martin’s statement, in the same declaration, that he “never thought Phillips’s alibi defense had any merit, especially since he was adamant that he was not present even after he had read all the police reports and other documents [Martin] provided him.” This statement is critical because Martin’s justification for not investigating a “shoot-out” theory was that it “would be both unethical and immoral to knowingly permit [Phillips] to commit perjury.” Phillips contends that Martin’s statement about *978 the weakness of the alibi defense shows that he never believed Phillips’s story, and that indeed seems to be the most sensible interpretation of Martin’s statement; otherwise, his reference to Phillips’s “adamance” in the face of the police reports that presented overwhelming evidence of his presence at the crime scene would make little sense.

However, if Martin never believed the alibi defense, then his explanation for failing to pursue an alternative “shoot-out” defense — that it would have been unethical to assist Phillips in committing perjury— cannot be accurate. This apparent contradiction, if proven through testimony, would not be inconsequential. Phillips’s ineffectiveness claim “is grounded upon his factual allegation that Martin did not believe his alibi story.” His argument is that Martin “reasonably could not rely upon information which Martin believed to be false regardless of the source of such information because false information has zero value.” The district court purported to resolve the apparent inconsistency in Martin’s statements by finding that Martin did believe Phillips’s alibi story: “Martin’s [state court] declaration [recanting his earlier testimony] implies that Martin believed Phillips’s account” (emphasis added). A careful review of that declaration reveals no such implication. Moreover, such an implication does not constitute the kind of statement that is ordinarily required for purposes of resolving an important question in an order denying an evidentiary hearing. If a potentially material fact is in dispute, the district court may not rest its denial of an evidentiary hearing, even in part, on a dubious — if not highly implausible — inference it draws from a general recitation of events in order to resolve the disputed factual question.

Phillips has “identified] the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The first question, then, is whether he has raised a colorable claim that, “in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. We have held that “counsel must, at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about how best to represent his client.” Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1456 (9th Cir.1994) (emphasis in the original). Counsel’s failure to consider an alternative defense cannot be considered “strategic” where counsel has “failed to conduct even the minimal investigation that would have enabled him to come to an informed decision about what defense to offer.... ” Id.

It is undisputed that Martin did not investigate any defense other than the alibi defense that was presented at trial. What makes this case a difficult one is that, in so doing, Martin was simply acting in compliance with his client’s own version of events. This is not, however, the first occasion on which we have been called upon to consider an ineffectiveness claim grounded upon a petitioner’s contention that his counsel was ineffective for accepting his implausible story rather than conducting a further investigation. In Johnson v. Baldwin, 114 F.3d 835 (9th Cir.1997), the petitioner’s counsel failed to investigate his “incredibly lame” alibi defense or to “confront! ] [the petitioner] with the difficulties of his story.” Id. at 838, 840 . Instead, counsel presented the petitioner’s uncorroborated defense that he had not been present at the scene of a rape, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Although, as in Phillips’s case, the petitioner’s counsel had presented a defense that was consistent with his *979 client’s story, we found that the petitioner had been prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness:

Id. at 840 .

The State and the dissent are correct that in Johnson the State did not challenge the district court’s finding that counsel’s performance had been deficient; it argued only that the petitioner had not been prejudiced by the deficiency. Id. at 838 . However, it is clear that the language quoted above bears directly on both prongs of the ineffectiveness inquiry, and that Johnson’s precedential value is not limited to the question of prejudice. The Johnson court necessarily evaluated counsel’s performance (as well as credited the district court’s factual finding) in determining whether such performance prejudiced the petitioner. Were there any doubt of that, it would be dispelled by the court’s conclusion: “[T]he effect of Haslett’s objectively deficient trial performance was ‘sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome’ of [petitioner’s] trial.” Id. at 840 (emphasis added). It is important to note that in Johnson we granted the writ and ordered a remand for a new trial, whereas here we consider only whether Phillips has satisfied the far less onerous “colorable claim” requirement for obtaining an evi-dentiary hearing. While it is true that the State’s evidence against the petitioner in Johnson was “extremely weak,” id. at 838 , that is beside the point. Phillips does not dispute that the evidence of his involvement in the crime is overwhelming. However, as we pointed out earlier, unlike the ineffectiveness claim in Johnson , Phillips’s claim does not depend on his being innocent.- Phillips does not deny that he was present at the crime scene and that he fired his gun at the victims. Nor does he deny that he is guilty of serious offenses. Rather, he contends only that, had Martin investigated and presented a “shoot-out” defense, there is a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted of the ultimate offense — first degree murder with the special circumstance of robbery— an offense that rendered him eligible for the death penalty.

Contrary to the argument in the dissent, the cases of Turk v. White, 116 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir.1997) and Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.1998) do not apply to, and in fact are not inconsistent with, this case. We agree with the dissent that Turk held that “once defense counsel reasonably selects a theory of defense, he cannot be held to have rendered deficient performance.” Dissent at 992. The dissent misses, however, the necessary prerequisite of effective counsel noted in its very own quotation. Turk states that defense counsel does not have an obligation to pursue an alternative, conflicting defense once he reasonably selects the defense to present at trial. See Turk, 116 F.3d at 1267 (“[0]nce [counsel] reasonably selected *980 the self-defense theory, his duty to investí-. gate the competency defense, which directly conflicted with the self-defense theory, ended.”); see also Bean, 163 F.3d at 1082 (stating that counsel made a “reasonable strategic choice” to present an alibi defense at trial). The critical words in Turk’s holding are “reasonably selected.” Nothing in our holding today conflicts with Turk . We hold that Phillips’s defense counsel did not reasonably select the alibi defense used at trial. In this case, as in Johnson , the defense used at trial was not selected on the basis of a reasonable investigation or strategic decision. Martin testified at a state-court evidentiary hearing that he would have presented the alternative defense had he had certain documents in his possession; the state habeas court later made a factual finding that Martin indeed had that information in his possession at the time of the trial. Moreover, by his own admission, Martin believed Phillips’s alibi defense to be an unreasonable one. Thus, Turk and Bean support, rather than conflict with, our finding of a color-able claim of deficient performance.

In sum, we hold that Phillips’s allegations, as well as Martin’s conflicting statements regarding his reasons for not investigating or presenting a “shoot-out” defense, raise a colorable claim that Martin provided ineffective assistance. We next consider whether Phillips has raised a colorable claim that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

B. Prejudice

In its brief to this court, the State declined to address the prejudice prong of the Strickland inquiry, resting entirely on its argument that Martin’s performance was not only competent, but “stellar.” Nor does the district court’s order denying Phillips’s petition contain any discussion of possible prejudice, beyond a single introductory statement that “Martin’s conduct [did not] result in prejudice sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Thus, neither the district court nor the State has addressed Phillips’s prejudice argument, which he summarizes as follows: “Phillips does not urge he was prejudiced by Martin’s performance because he is innocent and would not have been convicted of any crime if a ‘shoot-out’ defense had been presented at his guilt trial. Phillips’s prejudice argument is limited to an attack upon the reliability of the crime for which he stands convicted — first degree murder with special circumstances.”

Phillips’s claim, in other words, is not that he should have been acquitted, but that he should not have been convicted of an offense that rendered him eligible for the death penalty. Phillips was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, two counts of robbery, and the personal use of a firearm, and the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery was found true by the jury. Phillips contends that, had a “shoot-out” defense been presented, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would not have convicted him of first degree murder or, in the alternative, would not have found the special circumstance true. In either event, Phillips could not have been sentenced to death.

At the time of Phillips’s conviction, first degree murder was defined as “[a]ll murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate ... robbery.” Cal.Penal Code § 189 (Deering *981 1978) (effective 1970). The special circumstance found true by Phillips’s jury provided that any person convicted of first degree murder must be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole if:

Cal.Penal Code § 190.2(c)(3)(i) (Deering 1978) (effective August 11,1977). 6

According to Phillips, had a “shoot-out” defense been presented, and had the jury credited his account that he fired his weapon only after hearing “the ‘click’ of a hammer going back on a revolver,” or his evidence that the fatal shot was fired by Rose, it could not have found that Phillips had committed a “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” murder. There is a second and equally important reason why, Phillips asserts, the death penalty could not have been imposed upon him had the jury accepted a “shoot-out” theory. He asserts that, even assuming he killed Bartulis, his subsequent taking of property from the two victims, does not, under California law, meet the test for murder committed “in the perpetration of’ or “during the commission of’ a robbery. Thus, he argues, neither the alternative basis that might support a first-degree murder conviction (i.e., murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery), nor the basis for the special circumstance finding (i.e., murder committed during the commission of a robbery), was present in his case. Because these two contentions rest on an identical legal analysis, we will address them in our discussion of the special circumstance issue. 7

Penal. Code section 190.2(c)(3) — the special circumstance provision found true by the jury — provided that in order for a murder to have been committed “during the commission of’ any of the enumerated crimes, a jury was required to find the defendant guilty of the underlying offense listed in the particular special circumstance that was alleged. “Wherever a special circumstance requires proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime, such crime shall be charged and proved pursuant to the general law applying to the trial and conviction of the crime.” 8 Cal.Penal Code § 190.4 (Deering *982 1978) (effective August 11, 1977); see also People v. Morris, 46 Cal.3d 1 , 249 Cal.Rptr. 119 , 756 P.2d 843, 851 (1988) (“The inescapable inference.is that the legislature fully intended that the elements of the special circumstance felony must be formally proved”); People v. Green, 27 Cal.3d 1 , 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d 468, 504 (1980) (“[T]he district attorney correctly told the jurors that in order to find the charged special circumstances to be true they must first find defendant guilty of the underlying crimes of robbery and kidnaping”).

Therefore, in order for Phillips to be death-eligible under the charged special circumstance, the jury was required to— and did — find him guilty of robbery, as well as murder. However, had the jury been presented with a “shoot-out” defense' — even if it refused to credit his contention that he fired his weapon in outright self-defense — Phillips’s contention is that it might not have found him guilty of robbery under section 211.

Section 211 of the California Penal Code defined “robbery” as “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” Cal.Penal Code § 211 (Deering 1977). Under that provision, a robbery has not been committed unless the force or fear used to commit the taking was accompanied by intent to rob. “[I]f the larcenous purpose does not arise until after the force has been used against the victim, there is no ‘joint operation of act and intent’ necessary to constitute robbery.” Green, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d at 501 . In this case, if the jury believed that a shoot-out had occurred, it could well have determined that Phillips did not have the intent to take the money until after the force had already been used, i.e., after the shoot-out had occurred. That is precisely what Phillips now asserts. He maintains that he took the victims’ wallets to remove their identification from the crime scene. Indeed, the vast majority of the victims’ money — several thousand dollars — remained in their possession following the crime. The district court acknowledged that “there [was] evidence here that could imply Phillips’s motive in taking the wallets and Rose’s gun was to prevent identification of Rose and Bartulis,” but it found that there was sufficient other evidence that Phillips’s primary intent was to rob the victims to defeat his claim of “actual innocence.” Had the jury found that Phillips’s use of force was unrelated to the theft of property — that instead there had been a shootout after which Phillips decided to take the items he took — it would then have been required to find Phillips not guilty of robbery, and consequently not guilty of first degree murder with a special circumstance. In such case, Phillips would have been ineligible for the death penalty.

However, even if the jury had found Phillips guilty of the underlying offense of robbery, it might still have found that the State had not proved the special circumstance. The special circumstance finding does not simply require the jury to conclude that a first degree murder and an enumerated underlying felony have both been committed. The jury must also conclude that the murder was “committed during the commission of ” the underlying felony — in this case, robbery. Cal.Penal Code § 190.2(c)(3) (Deering 1978) (effective August 11, 1977) (emphasis added).

A special circumstance may not be found if the underlying felony was “incidental” to the murder. The California Supreme Court has made clear that, in order for a special circumstance involving a felony to be present, .the felony must be motivated by an “independent purpose — not merely incidental.” People v. Ochoa, 19 *983 Cal.4th 353 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442, 487 (1998). With respect to the special circumstance of robbery, the court has Stated that “[t]he Legislature’s goal is not achieved ... when the defendant’s intent is not to steal but to kill and the robbery is merely incidental to the murder[,] ‘a second thing to it....’” Green, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d at 505 . The rule derives from the court’s unwillingness to “permit a jury to choose who will live and who will die on the basis of whether in the course of committing a first degree murder the defendant happens to engage in ancillary conduct that technically constitutes robbery or one of the other listed felonies....” Id. 9

Essentially, the rule holds that if the motivation for the robbery is somehow wrapped up in the commission of the murder, the robbery is incidental. That is to say, if the intent to rob is formed after or during the course of the killing, the robbery will not support the finding of a special circumstance for the application of the death penalty. See People v. Musselwhite, 17 Cal.4th 1216 , 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 212 , 954 P.2d 475 (1998) (“[EJstablishing the felony-murder special circumstance includes showing [that] the intent to commit the underlying felony precedes the killing”) (emphasis added). Here, if a “shoot-out” defense had been presented at trial, the jury might well have found that Phillips did not form the intent to steal until after the killing, thus necessitating the conclusion that special circumstance 190.2(c)(3)(i) did not apply to Phillips. In such case, Phillips could not have been sentenced to death.

In view of all these circumstances, we conclude that Phillips has raised a color-able claim of prejudice, a sufficient showing to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We next proceed to a discussion of Phillips’s claims relating to the presentation of false testimony by the key prosecution witness and the prosecutor himself. In so doing, we note that this next claim may also be relevant to and serve to bolster the prejudice question we have just been discussing.

V. Perjury Claims

Phillips contends that Madera County District Attorney David Minier suppressed evidence of two plea agreements with Sharon Colman in which the State promised her leniency in exchange for her testimony implicating Phillips. Moreover, Phillips alleges that Colman committed perjury when she testified that she had not been promised any benefit in exchange for her testimony, and that Minier committed perjury when he testified that he had not communicated any promise of leniency or benefit to Colman. Moreover, he asserts that Minier knowingly used testimony by Coleman that he knew to be false.

Colman testified at Phillips’s trial that she had never been promised any benefit in exchange for her testimony. Minier, too, testified under oath that he “never had an agreement with Sharon Colman concerning what, if anything, she would receive in return for her testimony.” In his closing argument at Philips’s guilt trial, Minier bolstered Colman’s credibility by *984 emphasizing to the jury “that Miss Colman has never been promised anything in return for her testimony.” 10

Phillips points to several pieces of evidence that seriously undermine Minier’s account. Colman’s first attorney, Tom Peterson, testified in State postconviction proceedings that on December 28, 1977, Colman was interviewed at the Madera County jail by Minier and two Madera County detectives and told that nothing she said would be used against her. In return for Colman’s testimony, Peterson testified, Minier agreed orally to a deal that would permit Colman to plead guilty to a violation of Penal Code Section 32 (accessory to murder) and to receive no more than one year of jail time. Finally, Peterson testified that he specifically recalled communicating the details of Mini-er’s offer to Colman.

In a 1990 declaration, Minier acknowledged that he might have had an agreement with Peterson, but he explained that he was “sure that he would have expressly requested Mr. Peterson not convey the offer to Miss Colman; it was my habit and custom at that time to ‘insulate’ testifying accomplices from knowledge of the benefits they were to receive.” Minier further testified that he did have an agreement with Colman’s second attorney, Cassandra Dunn, regarding the benefit that Colman was to receive, but noted that there had been an “express understanding between Miss Dunn and me that she would not communicate the agreement to Colman.” This testimony by Minier raises serious questions as to whether he committed perjury at Phillips’s trial. Dunn, Colman’s lawyer, was, as a matter of law, Colman’s agent. When Minier made an agreement with Colman’s agent regarding her testimony, it would appear to follow that he did in fact — contrary to his sworn testimony— have an agreement with Colman.

The district court properly characterized Minier’s practice of “insulating” witnesses as “deplorable,” but concluded nonetheless that Phillips was not entitled to relief, or even to an evidentiary hearing. 11 The court noted that Phillips’s perjury claim had been “considered and rejected” by the Madera County Superior Court after an evidentiary hearing in 1990. While it is correct that the Superior Court rejected Phillips’s claim, that court did not make a factual finding as to whether false testimony was proffered and, if so, whether it was knowingly done by Minier. It did not, in fact, determine whether Colman or Minier or both had committed perjury. Rather, the Superior Court based its conclusions on the determination that any error was harmless, because the issue of Colman’s credibility and the possibility of a plea agreement were already before the jury. Thus, the facts underlying Phillips’s allegations of perjured testimony have not yet been fully developed.

It is well settled that the presentation of false evidence violates due *985 process. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959) (“[A] State may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction....”); United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488 (9th Cir.2000) (“The due process clause entitles defendants in criminal cases to fundamentally fair procedures. It is fundamentally unfair for a prosecutor to knowingly present perjury to the jury.”). If the false evidence is material — that is, reasonably likely to have affected the judgment of the jury — the defendant’s conviction must be reversed. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1985). Here, the record reveals that Mi-nier permitted Colman to testify that she did not expect to receive any benefit in exchange for her testimony, knowing that her testimony was highly questionable at best, and that he had twice promised such a benefit to Colman’s attorneys. In any event, assuming, as we must for purposes of determining Phillips’s entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, that Phillips’s allegations that Colman actually knew of the promise and deliberately committed perjury are true, the question then becomes: Is there a reasonable possibility that Col-man’s and Minier’s false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury? Here, the answer requires a two-step analysis.

Although Phillips argued below that Colman’s allegedly perjured testimony did affect the judgment of the jury, he concedes on appeal that it did not, because— in the context of his wholly meritless alibi defense — “the only issue at trial was whether Phillips was the shooter, and there was overwhelming evidence that Phillips was the shooter.” Thus, Phillips now professes, “the jury would credit Col-man’s testimony on this narrow issue even if it was aware that Colman lied under oath about her ... plea bargain.” Phillips does not concede, however, that Colman’s and Minier’s allegedly perjurious testimony would have been non-prejudicial had counsel not been ineffective. In other words, he asserts that the allegedly perjured testimony would have been prejudicial if, at the trial, his counsel had presented a “shoot-out,” rather than an alibi, defense. In short, Phillips specifically contends that the combined effect of his counsel’s deficient performance and the presentation of false testimony was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant the granting of an evidentiary hearing.

VI. Cumulative Prejudicial Ejfect of the Two Errors

We consider the cumulative prejudicial effect of multiple trial errors in determining whether relief is warranted. Mak v. Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614, 622 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (collecting cases). Here, we conclude that, regardless of whether his ineffective assistance of counsel claim would, standing alone, entitle him to an evidentiary hearing, Phillips has raised a colorable claim that the failure to present a “shoot-out” defense, when considered together with the false testimony that Colman and Minier allegedly presented, was sufficiently prejudicial to entitle him to that relief.

It was Colman’s testimony, and principally hers, that provided the basis for the finding of premeditation and the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery. Had the issue at trial been the circumstances of the shooting rather than the identity of the shooter, there would have been little, if any, corroboration of Colman’s account. Although it is undisputed that Phillips took the wallets of the victims following the shooting, he now contends that he did so in order to remove their identification from the crime scene; the fact that thousands of dollars *986 remained in the victims’ possession provides support for Phillips’s allegation. Without Colman’s testimony, the State would have been hard-pressed to explain why Phillips, in committing the special circumstance of robbery, left most of the victims’ money behind at the scene. Col-man’s testimony, and thus her credibility, were therefore crucial to Phillips’s eligibility for a death sentence. Had the jury concluded that, as her first lawyer’s testimony strongly tends to establish, she lied under oath regarding the benefit she would receive in exchange for her testimony, its judgment might well have been affected. 12

Considering the prejudice that might well have resulted if Phillips’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel proves to be valid (see discussion at IV.B.), together with the prejudice that might well have resulted from the use of Colman’s false testimony, we conclude that Phillips has presented a colorable claim that the combined effect of the alleged constitutional violations is sufficiently prejudicial to meet the Townsend v. Sain standard. 13 Thus, we conclude that Phillips is entitled to an evidentiary hearing with regard to his claims that his counsel was ineffective and that the State presented false testimony. 14

VII. Other Claims

Phillips remaining claims are without merit and may be addressed succinctly.

A. Bad Faith Destruction of Evidence

Phillips contends that the State acted in bad faith by permitting the destruction of the Ranchero truck in which Rose and Bartulis were shot, without providing notice to either Phillips or his attorney. Phillips’s theory is that the Ranchero might have contained evidence supporting his claim that Bartulis was killed during a shoot-out.

Absent a showing of bad faith on the part of the police, “failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not *987 constitute a denial of due process of law.” Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 , 109 S.Ct. 333 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988). Phillips makes no colorable showing, or indeed any showing at all, that the State destroyed the Ranchero to prevent disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense, nor is there any reason to believe that the exculpatory value of the Ranchero was apparent prior to its destruction. “The mere failure to preserve evidence which could have been subjected to tests which might have exonerated the defendant does not constitute a due process violation.” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1455 (9th Cir.1997). Phillips has not met the requirements for an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

B. Brady Violations

Phillips contends that the prosecution failed to disclose reports prepared by former Madera County SheriffCoroner Edward Bates and by the California Department of Justice concerning their examinations of the burnt-out Ranchero truck. Phillips asserts that the reports contain exculpatory evidence that would support his claim that it was Rose who shot Bartulis, and that the suppression of the reports violates the dictates of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In support of his allegation, Phillips introduced declarations to the effect that Bates had a practice of filling out reports describing the results of such examinations, and that the truck was delivered to the California Department of Justice by a towing service at the behest of the District Attorney’s office.

The State maintains that the Ranchero was never examined by the Department of Justice (and thus no DOJ report exists), and that even if Sheriff Bates did prepare a report, it would not have contained any evidence favorable to Phillips. Although there is some evidence that would support Phillips’s allegation that Bates did in fact prepare a report, the State is correct that absolutely no evidence supports Phillips’s claim that such a report would have contained exculpatory evidence, and that claim is directly contradicted by Bates’ own declaration. 15 As to Phillips’s claim that the State suppressed a report by the California DOJ, the evidence that any report was in fact developed is tenuous, at best. 16 The district court did not err in characterizing Phillips’s Brady claims as “mere suppositions,” and Phillips is not entitled to a hearing to pursue them further.

C. Factual Innocence

Phillips contends that he is “factually innocent” of the special circumstance found by the jury — that is, that Bartulis was murdered during the course of a robbery — because Rose, not he, fired the fatal shot, and because the robbery was “incidental to” the murder. Accordingly, Phillips argues, he is legally ineligible for a sentence of death. Assuming that a “truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial ... would warrant federal habeas relief,” the Supreme Court has stated that the threshold showing for such an assumed right would be extremely high. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400, 417 , 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1992).

*988 We need not determine whether Phillips’s factual allegations raise a colorable claim of innocence under the standard that the Court has indicated would be necessary. The allegations that support Phillips’s factual innocence claim are the same allegations that support his ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims. We have already determined that those allegations entitle him to a hearing on the latter claims. Because the standard for obtaining relief on the basis of those claims is considerably less stringent than the standard for obtaining relief on a claim of factual innocence, Phillips’s chances necessarily rise or fall with his ineffectiveness and due process claims. If Phillips is ultimately entitled to some relief on account of those claims, the factual innocence question need not be reached. If, on the other hand, Phillips fails to establish following an evidentiary hearing that he suffered sufficient prejudice regarding his other two claims, he certainly will not be able to establish his factual innocence. Accordingly, we decline to decide whether Phillips’s claim of factual innocence might entitle him to relief.

D. Recusal on Remand

Phillips contends that, if the district court’s decision is reversed, this court should order the case reassigned to a different judge. We have made clear that remand to a new judge is “not the usual remedy when error is found in district court proceedings. Remand to a new judge is reserved for ‘únusual circumstances.’” United States v. Arnett, 628 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.1979). Absent proof of personal bias, three factors determine whether a case should be remanded to a different judge: (1) “whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected; (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.” Id. at 1165 n. 5. Factors two and three are intertwined and require a weighing of interests. Factor one is independent, and is enough standing alone to require recusal.

Having reviewed the record of proceedings below, we find no basis for concluding that the district judge will have difficulty being fair and impartial or that reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of fairness. Accordingly, we deny Phillips’s request for reassignment to a different judge on remand. 17

VIII. Conclusion

We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the State and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Phillips’s claims regarding the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel and the prosecution’s presentation of false testimony. We reject Phillips’s remaining claims for relief.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

. While this appeal was pending, Phillips's second death sentence was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on January 24, 2000. On September 27, 2000, the state supreme court denied Phillips’s petition for postconviction relief. Phillips thereafter filed motions preliminary to filing a federal habeas petition challenging his sentence in the district court, and a majority of the panel concluded in an unpublished order, with Judge Kleinfeld concurring and dissenting, that a habeas challenge to the sentence constitutes a part of the pending habeas proceeding, the conviction portion of which is now before us. In view of the unique circumstances of Phillips's case and the extraordinary delay that occurred in the state proceedings, rather than postpone our ruling on Phillips's challenge to his conviction until the district court has considered Phillips's sentencing issues, we consider the conviction issues now and reverse in part and remand, so that the two parts of Phillips’s habeas proceeding may be considered together and so that any future appeal will present all conviction and sentencing issues at one time.

. Although Phillips’s entitlement to relief is governed by pre-AEDPA law, the Supreme Court has held that AEDPA's provisions regarding the issuance of a certificate of appeal-ability (COA) as a predicate to review in the court of appeals apply to all cases in which the notice of appeal was filed after AEDPA’s effective date. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482 , 120 S.Ct. 1595 , 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Phillips’s appeal falls within this category. Consistent with Slack , we treat Phillips's notice of appeal as a request for a COA. See id. We conclude that he has made the requisite "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2), with respect to each of the claims he raises on appeal, in that "reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. at 484 , 120 S.Ct. 1595 ; see also Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 , 1021 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc); Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th Cir.2000). We therefore grant the COA and exercise jurisdiction over these issues.

. The state court orders set forth no procedural (or indeed any other) basis for the denial of a hearing on the "shoot-out” issue. Instead, they simply deny Phillips's petitions summarily.

. The dissent states: “The question that has to occur to anyone reading a case twenty-four years old has to be, 'Why didn’t Phillips mention before now that his alibi was a lie, and that his lawyer was a dunce for not presenting his shoot-out defense?' ” Dissent at 990. Obviously Phillips did, many years ago. Moreover, the dissent fails to note that the case is twenty-four years old because of errors made by the state court requiring new sentencing proceedings, significant problems in getting accurate sentencing trial transcripts, and the inordinate delay in the state courts’ commencement and review of the new proceedings. See Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir.1995). Phillips’s death sentence was first reversed in 1985. The required new state proceedings in the trial court did not end until approximately twelve years after the initial verdict, and direct review of Phillips’s second death sentence did not conclude until Januaiy, 2000. See supra note 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally brought in collateral proceedings, at which a record can be developed. Phillips commenced his state habeas proceedings in 1988, years before direct review of his appeal had concluded. He requested an evi-dentiary hearing on his “shoot-out" ineffective assistance of counsel claim approximately two years after the initiation of his state habe-as proceedings. No one questions that those proceedings were commenced in a timely manner. Given that Phillips was attempting to develop a host of habeas claims while his case was still on direct appeal, it is hardly surprising that he did not raise all of his collateral claims in his initial post-conviction petition, or that he is not precluded from presenting them in separate petitions. See infra page 976.

. The fourth and fifth pieces of evidence come from the post-trial declarations of Nichols ' and Bishop, not from police reports. Phillips contends that “a reasonable investigation by attorney Martin would have lead [sic] to this evidence.”

. Phillips correctly asserts that no other special circumstance would have applied to him at the time of his conviction; thus, had the jury not found the charged special circumstance true, Phillips could not have been sentenced to death.

. We note, in this connection, that while a first-degree murder conviction need not be based on a finding that the .murder was “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” if the jury finds, instead, that it was committed “in the perpetration of a robbery,” the special circumstance finding must be based on both elements: the murder must be both "willful, deliberate, and premeditated,” and it must be committed “during the commission of a robbery.”

.It is not entirely clear whether this language means that a conviction for the underlying crime is required (e.g., in circumstances where the statute of limitations has run on the underlying felony). However, the California courts have uniformly agreed that, at the very least, each element of the underlying crime must be proven. People v. Superior Court, 183 Cal.App.3d 636 , 228 Cal.Rptr. 357, 360 (1986) (discussing the statute of limitations issue as to whether conviction is required, but taking as a given the requirement "that an underlying crime be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

. As discussed supra, a provision that is identical in meaning though slightly different in language may serve as an alternate basis for a first-degree murder conviction. That provision States that a killing is murder in the first degree if it is committed "in the perpetration of” a robbery. Cal.Penal Code § 189 (Deering 1978) (effective 1970). "During the commission of" and “in the perpetration of” denote the same temporal and causal relationship. Thus, the California cases discussed in the text are equally applicable to the question of the alternate ground for a finding of first-degree murder.

. Following her testimony and the imposition of a death sentence on Phillips, Colmar! was not charged with any crime.

. We note that it was not only the prosecutor whose conduct was deplorable, but the second defense attorney as well. If Dunn indeed concealed from her client the existence of a plea bargain or immunity agreement, and allowed her client — who faced capital murder charges — to testify without any knowledge of the agreement she had reached on her behalf, she plainly violated her ethical duty to “keep [Colman] reasonably informed of significant developments” regarding her case, Cal. Bus. and Prof.Code § 6068(m), and failed to "explain [the] matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit [Colman] to make informed decisions regarding [her] representation.” Model Code of Professional Conduct Rule 1.4 (1983).

. Although Phillips's counsel did attack Col-man's credibility by arguing that there appeared to be a deal, the prosecution argued otherwise, and the jury was never informed that such a deal actually existed. More important, had the jury known that Colman lied about the existence of a deal, it might have been less willing to credit her testimony about other matters as well.

. To put it differently, the State argues in part that counsel’s failure to present the ''shoot-out” defense is not prejudicial because it is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence offered at Phillips's trial. To the extent that Phillips has presented a colorable claim that Coleman’s perjured testimony violated his constitutional rights, her testimony must be disregarded when evaluating prejudice with respect to the ineffectiveness of counsel claim. Thus, there is a direct link and a cumulative effect as to the two prejudicial errors.

. Phillips also contends that he is entitled to a new trial on account of Minier's perjured testimony even absent a showing of prejudice. He argues that his is the "unusual case” contemplated by the Supreme Court in footnote nine of Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), in which "a deliberate and especially egregious error of the trial type, or one that is so combined with a pattern of prosecutorial conduct” as to "infect the integrity of the proceedings” warrants "the grant of habeas relief even if it did not substantially affect the juiy’s verdict.” Id. at 638 n. 9, 113 S.Ct. 1710 . We have previously explained that in evaluating whether "Footnote Nine” error has occurred, "the key consideration is whether the integrity of the proceeding was so infected that the entire trial was unfair.” Hardnett v. Marshall, 25 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir.1994). In this case, it cannot be said that Minier's conduct rendered the entire trial unfair and warrants reversal of the conviction absent a showing of actual prejudice. Accordingly, the district court properly denied relief on this claim.

. Bates attested that any report that he would have developed would not have included any exculpatory material because, in his opinion, none existed.

. The record includes a declaration from a DOJ examiner who asserts that he was the only DOJ official to work on the case, that he never examined the Ranchero, and that the DOJ would not have accepted a car delivered by a towing service.

. Phillips also contends that the cumulative prejudicial effect of all the violations of his federal constitutional rights which occurred’ at the 1980 guilt trial entitles him to relief. We have already determined that Phillips is entitled to a hearing with regard to the corn-bined prejudicial effect of counsel's ineffective performance and the prosecution's presentation of false testimony. Phillips’s remaining claims do not entitle him to any relief, either individually or cumulatively.