Watson

MEMORANDUM *

Anthony Mario Watson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, dismiss in part, and remand for a new evidentiary hearing.

Watson first claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate a potential alibi defense. “[Cjounsel has a duty to make reasonable *458 investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The state courts denied Watson’s petition on this ground, but the district court concluded that the state court’s findings were not entitled to deference because they were not supported by the evidence in the record. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and ultimately rejected Watson’s claim on the performance prong of Strickland .

Regarding counsel’s failure to interview potential alibi witnesses White and Yard, the court found that counsel did not have reason to know about them until after Watson’s trial. This finding was…