Gilmore
Gilmore v. Cate
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Joshua Gilmore appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.
Gilmore asserts that the district court erred when it denied his claim that trial counsel was ineffective 1 because he failed to move to suppress the testimony 2 of the victim, who had suffered an unprovoked and brutal assault that caused significant brain injuries. We disagree. On this record, we are satisfied that a fairminded jurist 3 could determine that the victim’s testimony was reliable 4 and was not tainted by circumstances that would render it otherwise. 5 On that basis, fairminded jurists could also determine that counsel was not ineffective when he failed to pursue what would have been an unmeritorious motion to preclude the witness from testifying. 6 We also note that evidence of the victim’s difficulties was placed before the jury. So, too, was testimony from a psychiatrist who had expertise regarding the problems inherent in eyewitness identification. We are unable to say that the state court’s determination was unreasonable; 7 the district court did not err.