TABLE OF CONTENTS
        
          I. BACKGROUND ....................................................... 218
             A. The Trial ..................................................... 219
                1. The Commonwealth's Case .................................... 220
                2. Lambert's Case ............................................. 223
             B. Procedural History ............................................ 227
        
         II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................. 230
        
        III. DISCUSSION ....................................................... 231
             A. Exhaustion .................................................... 231
             B. Deference ..................................................... 234
             C. The Merits .................................................... 241
                1. The Sweatpants ............................................. 242
                   a. Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony ....................... 242
                   b. "Switching" Evidence .................................... 245
                2. Evidence of Yunkin's Location During the Murder ............ 247
                   a. Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony ....................... 249
                   b. Suppression of Brady Material ........................... 252
                3. The "29 Questions" ......................................... 254
                4. The Crime Scene Photographs ................................ 256
                5. The Dying Declaration ...................................... 259
                6. The DA's Contact with Lambert's Trial Expert ............... 260
                7. The River Search ........................................... 264
                   a. Brady Violation Concerning the Pink Bag and Sneaker ..... 264
                   b. Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony ....................... 265
                   c. Brady Violation Concerning the Rope ..................... 266
                   d. Destruction of Evidence ................................. 267
        
         IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 267

Before us, after a lengthy journey up and down the state and federal justice systems, is the habeas petition of Lisa Michelle Lambert. Lambert is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for first degree murder. Judge Lawrence Stengel of the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania imposed the sentence on Lambert after he found Lambert guilty at a bench trial held in July of 1992.

Lambert initially appealed her conviction in the Pennsylvania state courts, which rejected her claims on direct appeal. She thereafter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. After holding a hearing over the course of three weeks, Judge Stewart Dalzell of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found Lambert "actually innocent" and granted her petition. He specifically barred any retrial.

Lambert was released into the custody of her attorneys on April 16, 1997, but her freedom was short-lived. Less than a year later, this Court vacated the District Court's judgment due to Lambert's failure to exhaust her available state court remedies, namely collateral review pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). Lambert consequently returned to state court, where a PCRA Court (again Judge Stengel) held a six-week hearing and determined in a comprehensive opinion that relief under the PCRA was not warranted.

After the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the PCRA Court's decision, Lambert not surprisingly re-filed her federal habeas petition. Judge Dalzell held that the state courts' findings were null and void because they lacked jurisdiction to hear Lambert's PCRA petition. He then reinstated his findings from the 1997 habeas hearing and gave the parties a month to request additional testimony on topics that the Court had not addressed in 1997. In the meantime, the Commonwealth sought Judge Dalzell's recusal.

Judge Dalzell eventually acquiesced to the Commonwealth's efforts at recusal, and the case was assigned to Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Brody dismissed Lambert's habeas petition after determining, contrary to Judge Dalzell's ruling, that the PCRA Court's findings were not null and void and were entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Lambert now appeals from that judgment.

This case presents a host of sensitive issues. At one level are the very serious allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that Lambert argues require her release. But important institutional concerns also infuse this case. A state court and a federal court reached diametrically opposed conclusions, and two federal courts took substantially different views of the state court proceedings. This unusual history highlights the need to respect the limits of federal habeas review, as well as the principle of comity that informs that review. Simply put, a habeas court reviews a state conviction to determine whether a state prisoner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; the federal court is not mandated to retry the case and substitute its own verdict.

We conclude that the PCRA Court decision here was indeed entitled to deference. After carefully reviewing the entire record and applying that deference de novo, we conclude that the PCRA Court's determinations were well-supported and require that we deny Lambert habeas relief. Put more simply: Lambert's trial was fair, amply supported, and not infected by material error or injustice. We will affirm the denial of the writ by Judge Brody.

At the center of this contentious case lies the brutal murder of Laurie Show. Show died from knife wounds-stabs to her back and slashes to her throat-inflicted on her by intruders in her home on the morning of December 20, 1991. She was fifteen years old at the time of her death.

The investigation of Show's murder quickly zeroed in on three individuals: Lisa Michelle Lambert, Tabitha Faith Buck, and Lawrence Yunkin. The police arrested Lambert and Yunkin on outstanding warrants on the day of Show's murder. Upon questioning, they both admitted their involvement in the attack on Show; and they both implicated Buck.

The Lancaster County District Attorney eventually charged Lambert and Buck with criminal homicide and Yunkin with hindering apprehension.1 Lambert waived her right to a jury trial, and a week-long bench trial was held before Judge Lawrence Stengel of the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

It hardly needs to be said that in our adversarial system of justice, the opposing parties-in a criminal case, the prosecution and defense-typically advance two radically different versions of events. This case is no exception.

To be sure, the government and defense agreed on broadly what happened: Yunkin and Lambert were romantically involved and lived together, but their relationship entered an eight-day hiatus over the summer of 1991. During those eight days, Yunkin dated Laurie Show.

Lambert and Yunkin eventually resumed their relationship, and there was real animosity between Lambert and Show. So, in July 1991, Lambert devised a plan to enlist the help of several other teenagers to humiliate Show by luring her out of her home, cutting off her hair, and tying her up to a pole within the City of Lancaster. The plan did not come to fruition because two of the girls involved eventually warned Show.

Months later, on December 19, 1991, someone called Laurie Show's mother, Hazel Show, claiming to be her daughter's guidance counselor. The caller scheduled a meeting with Hazel Show for 7 a.m. the following morning at the principal's office of Laurie Show's high school.

The next morning Yunkin, Lambert, and Buck drove to the condominium complex where Show's home was located. They brought with them a knife from Yunkin's and Lambert's home and rope and two black knit hats that Lambert had purchased the previous day at K-Mart. Sometime around 7 a.m., while Hazel Show was out to attend the "meeting" she thought she would have with her daughter's "guidance counselor," Laurie Show was home alone. Lambert and Buck entered the Show residence. A struggle ensued during which someone stabbed Show and slit her throat.

Lambert, Buck, and Yunkin (whose precise whereabouts during and involvement in the melee with Show, as we explain more fully below, was disputed at trial) drove away from the condominium complex together. The three of them devised an alibi, and Yunkin and Lambert dropped Buck off at school.

Lambert and Yunkin then proceeded to discard evidence from Show's murder. They washed clothes worn during the murder, put them in a bag, and threw them into a dumpster behind K-Mart. They threw a bag containing, among other things, the knife and rope into the Susquehanna River.

Within these general contours, however, the government and defense presented Judge Stengel with diverging versions of what happened. The Commonwealth argued that Lambert hated Show and was deeply involved in the planning and execution of Show's murder. Lambert argued that Yunkin and Buck were to blame and that she tried to prevent them from murdering Show.

Our role is not, of course, to determine the veracity of either account. Rather, we are confined to ascertaining whether any constitutional error occurred at Lambert's trial. Yet the parties' factual contentions at trial provide the necessary framework for understanding Lambert's detailed claims of error. Many of her claims involve allegations that the government knowingly use perjured testimony and suppressed evidence tending to support her version of events. We therefore relate in some detail the evidence the parties presented at trial and the inferences they urged Judge Stengel to make from that evidence.

The Commonwealth called several witnesses whose testimony tended to show that Lambert hated Show. Several testified that they heard Lambert say numerous times that she wanted to kill Show. Two of Lambert and Yunkin's neighbors swore, for example, that Lambert repeatedly said she wanted to "beat [Show] up" and "get her out of the way and kill her." App. 690, 701.2 Three witnesses testified that they heard Lambert, on at least one occasion, mention slitting Show's throat.3

Several witnesses related incidents involving Lambert and Show that occurred during the months leading to Show's murder. A number of Lambert's cohorts in the thwarted plan to abduct Show and tie her up to a pole in Lancaster, for example, testified about the plan.

Others testified about physical altercations that occurred between Lambert and Show. Hazel Show testified about an incident that occurred in July of 1991. While Hazel Show was waiting in her car to pick up Laurie from her job at the mall, she saw Lambert grab Laurie and push her into a wall. Hazel Show reported what happened to the police.4

Hazel Show also testified that on August 20, 1991, Lambert approached Hazel and Laurie while they were out shopping. Lambert "came up and started screaming and yelling all kinds of obscenities and just being very vicious." App. 827. One thing Lambert screamed was that sexual relations had occurred between Yunkin and Laurie Show during their brief relationship. Hazel Show told Lambert that Yunkin had raped her daughter Laurie, and that they might press charges if Lambert continued to harass Laurie. In fact, Laurie Show had made a report to police on July 31, 1991 that Yunkin had date raped her.

Another altercation occurred in the parking lot of the East Towne Mall on November 22, 1991. Show was in the parking lot with some friends, including Randy Rodriguez and Jacqueline Weakland. Weakland testified that as they stood talking next to Rodriguez's truck, Lambert — who was pregnant — approached Show and began screaming that Show had ruined her (Lambert) and her (as yet unborn) baby's life. Rodriguez testified that Lambert beat Show's head against the cab of his truck. According to Rodriguez, Lambert said that if she found out Show told the police about the incident she had "friends that would take care of" Show and she would kill Show. App. 777. Weakland also testified that Lambert said she was going to kill Show.

Hazel Show learned what happened and, despite Lambert's threats, reported the incident to the police that same day. The police did not begin to investigate the incident, however, until December 16, 2001. John Bowman, of the East Lampeter Township Police Department, testified that he began by contacting Show and Weakland about the incident. He also called Lambert's parents to try to find her current address, which they were unable to provide to him.

A friend of Yunkin's, Lawrence Lamparter, related an encounter he had with Lambert on December 18, 2001, a couple of days before Show's murder. Lamparter ran into Lambert at the mall. She told Lamparter that the police were looking for her because she had assaulted Show. She also told him that Show was going to charge Yunkin with rape and that "she was going to get Laurie." App. 793.

The Commonwealth called Yunkin to the stand to testify about the events surrounding Show's murder. Yunkin testified that he drove Lambert to K-Mart the night before the slaying, on December 19, 1991. He waited in the car while she purchased rope and two knit ski hats.

Lambert woke Yunkin up early the next morning. According to Yunkin, Lambert put on a pair of his sweatpants, one of his flannel shirts, and a "jergo" (a hooded sweatshirt). He testified that Lambert often wore his clothes at the time because she was almost seven months pregnant.

They drove to pick up Tabatha Buck, arriving at her house at approximately 6:30 a.m. Yunkin dropped Lambert and Buck off in a wooded area along Oak View Road, a road that ran next to the condominium complex where Laurie Show lived. Lambert told him to go to a nearby McDonald's restaurant, Yunkin testified, and come back in a half hour. Buck told him not to lock the doors because they might have to make a fast getaway.

Yunkin testified that he arrived at McDonald's at 6:50 a.m. and waited for the restaurant to open at 7 a.m. He bought some food when the McDonald's opened and then left to pick up Lambert and Buck. He stayed at McDonald's for approximately fifteen minutes in total.5

Lambert and Buck were not present when he arrived to pick them up, so he drove around a little. He passed by their meeting spot on Oak View Road several times before Lambert and Buck showed up and got in the car. As they drove home, Yunkin asked Lambert what happened. She told him "not to worry about it" and that she would "tell [him] later if [he] needed to know." App. 258.

The inhabitant of the apartment below the Shows', Richard G. Kleinhaus, also testified at the trial. Kleinhaus said that he woke up at around 5:45 a.m. on the morning of Show's murder. From his window, he saw Hazel Show leaving the complex. Kleinhaus heard the front door slam above him, followed by a scream and a thump on the floor of the bedroom. Six or eight minutes later, he heard the door slam again. At that time, around ten or twelve minutes after seven o'clock, he looked out the window and saw two people of identical height (approximately 5' 7") exit the stairwell.

The Commonwealth also elicited testimony from Frederick E. Fry, another resident of the condominium complex. Fry testified that at 7:13 a.m. he was waiting in his car while he let the engine idle for a little while. As he backed his car out, Fry saw two individuals to his right. They passed in front of his car as he started forward, and he saw that one was a little shorter and heavier than the other. He estimated that the shorter was approximately 5'3" to 5'5" tall and the taller was approximately 5'5" to 5' 7" tall. He believed, based on his observations, that they were both women.6

Hazel Show furnished particularly dramatic testimony. She arrived home at some time between 7:20 and 7:25 a.m., after Laurie Show's guidance counselor never showed up for the fictitious meeting appointment. She found her daughter lying on the floor bleeding, and she yelled to her neighbor downstairs to call 911. There was rope tied around Laurie Show's neck, she testified, so she retrieved a knife from the kitchen to cut it. Laurie Show breathed deeply after the rope was cut, and her mother held and cradled her. Hazel Show asked who had attacked her, and Laurie Show answered "Michelle did it." App. 839. Lisa Lambert was also known by her middle name—Michelle.

Officer Robin Weaver of the East Lampeter Township Police Department testified that at approximately 7:45 a.m. he and Corporal Jan Fassnacht were the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. Several medical personnel had already arrived, however, and they were attending to Laurie Show. Weaver observed a rope around Show's neck and saw wounds on Show's neck, leg, and hands. He also found clumps of hair on the floor of the apartment.

Dr. Enrique Penades, the doctor who performed the autopsy on Show, described the wounds he observed and offered opinions as to their cause: several bruises on Show's head from a blunt force; three cuts on her back due to stabs from a knife, one of which penetrated through the right lung; two wounds on her legs, including a cut to her thigh that penetrated to her pelvis; twenty one cuts on her hands, probably due to Show's efforts to grab the knife and hands of her assailant; and a big slashing wound on the throat that was the result of at least three strokes. He testified that the wounds to Show's neck and the deep wound to her back were fatal, and he believed Show was alive not more than a half hour after sustaining the wounds.

Penades also testified that, despite the wounds to Show's neck, he believed she could say "Michelle did it"; "not in a regular tone but a whispering, mumbling, intelligently [sic] enough for someone who is close to this person to understand what [she] was saying." App. 143. Dr. Joseph S. Annese, another expert witness for the Commonwealth, also offered his opinion that Show could speak the words "Michelle did it" despite the wounds she sustained.

Yunkin testified that Lambert and Buck took showers after the three of them arrived home that morning. At that point, Lambert told him that Buck and Show were wrestling and Show accidentally got stabbed in the back, causing a hissing sound as if her lung were punctured. Lambert said that she and Buck agreed to slit Show's throat to put her out of her misery, but she never told Yunkin if they went through with it.

Yunkin testified that he and Lambert washed a bag of clothes that Lambert and Buck had worn that morning and threw them in a dumpster behind K-Mart. Lambert later told him that she needed to get rid of another bag, and he drove her to the Susquehanna River where she threw a bag in. They later returned to the river to get rid of the jergo that Lambert had worn.

Several law enforcement officials testified about finding Lambert, Yunkin, and Buck at a local bowling alley that night and bringing them in for questioning. According to their testimony, Lambert's story changed a few times over the course of questioning. Lambert first told the police the alibi story she, Yunkin, and Buck had devised.

Raymond Solt of the Pennsylvania State Police eventually took over questioning Lambert. After again giving the alibi story, Solt testified, Lambert admitted to him that the story was false. Lambert eventually settled on a version of events in which Buck was largely responsible for Show's murder. Solt and another officer transcribed Lambert's statement, and Lambert ultimately signed it.7 In the statement, Lambert admitted that it was her idea to go to Show's apartment because she wanted to talk to Show. According to Lambert's statement, Buck went alone to knock on Show's door because Show's mother knew Lambert. Lambert went into the apartment after she heard someone answer and the door shut, and she found Buck struggling with Show. Buck attacked Show with a knife, Lambert told Solt, and she "just stood there" because she "was so scared." App. 470. Eventually, Lambert said, she "couldn't look anymore and I turned away." Id.

Lambert based her case predominantly on her own testimony, during which she admitted several facts tending to implicate her in Show's murder. She admitted to being angry at Show, for example, ostensibly because Show had made up rumors about her in order to create a rift between her and Yunkin. Similarly, Lambert conceded that she had said she wanted to kill Show, but she explained that she only meant it as a figure of speech. She also admitted that on the morning of Show's murder she brought along a bag containing a knife from her apartment, rope, ski hats, and sunglasses. But Lambert brought these with her, she testified, because she and Yunkin planned on going to cut down a Christmas tree later in the day. The ski hats-which Lambert admitted to purchasing from K-Mart the night before, along with the rope-were intended to keep wood chips out of their hair. They needed the knife to cut the small branches off the base of the tree so it would fit into the stand. The sunglasses were necessary to prevent them from getting pinkeye. And the rope was for tying up the tree; indeed, Lambert testified that she purchased that particular rope because it contained a picture of a man dragging a Christmas tree on its packaging.

Despite these seemingly inculpatory admissions, Lambert maintained that it was Yunkin and Buck who developed the plan to attack Show and she only learned of the plan the day before the attack. Moreover the plan, as far as she knew, never involved murdering Show.

During the week leading to Show's murder, Lambert testified, Yunkin repeatedly told her and Buck that he was nervous that Show was going to press rape charges against him. Yunkin and Buck told Lambert that they had a plan to "get" Show that would "keep her mouth shut." App. 1037. But they would not tell her exactly what their plan was.

The night before Show's murder, Lambert and Yunkin went to Buck's house. There, Yunkin again expressed his fear that Show would put him in jail by accusing him of rape. Buck and Yunkin then told Lambert about their plan.

They had decided to go to Show's house, knock on her door, pull her outside, and beat her up enough to put her in the hospital. Buck explained that she had called Hazel Show and set up a fake meeting with Laurie Show's guidance counselor so that she would not be there when they came to attack Show.

Lambert told them that it was a "stupid" plan because Yunkin would get into almost as much trouble for beating up Show as he would for the rape charge. She also told them that she did not want to be involved in beating up Show because (at least she believed) Show was pregnant. As a result, Lambert suggested they do what they had planned on doing the previous summer: cutting off Show's hair and humiliating her.

Buck and Yunkin eventually agreed, and the three of them settled on accosting Show as she left her apartment and cutting her hair off. Thus, Lambert testified, she put a pair of scissors in the bag containing the tools for cutting down the Christmas tree: the knife, ski hats, and rope.

Yunkin and Lambert picked up Buck early the next morning. During the car ride to Show's home, Buck looked through the bag containing the knife, ski hats, and rope and found that the scissors were missing. Buck told Lambert that they could use the knife instead of scissors, and she cut off a piece of her own hair to demonstrate. Buck also cut off a piece of the rope, explaining that they could use it to tie Show's hands and feet together.

Yunkin developed a cough as they approached the entrance to Show's condominium complex, and he decided to go to McDonald's to get a drink. Lambert and Buck went on to Show's apartment without him; Buck carried the knife and rope.

The two of them waited for Show at the bottom of the stairway that led to the floor where her apartment was located. Buck became cold and decided to go and ask Show what was taking her so long. Lambert heard Buck and Show talking. Then, Lambert testified, she heard some scuffling and the door slam.

Lambert called Buck but Buck did not answer, so she climbed the stairs and entered Show's apartment. She found Buck hitting Show on the floor. Lambert grabbed Show's ankles and told her to calm down because they just wanted to talk to her. Show freed herself and ran into the adjacent room, her bedroom. Buck followed after her.

It was then, Lambert testified, that Buck took out the knife. Lambert told Buck to put the knife away, because she saw a pair of scissors they could use to cut Show's hair instead. But Buck did not listen and, after pulling Show down, began to hack at Show's hair with the knife.8

Lambert tried to rescue Show from Buck. First she tried to pull Buck away from Show, but the knife (which she saw "bounce" off Show's back) came close to her face. Next, she pulled Show away from Buck. At that point, she heard a "whooshing" sound (due apparently to a puncture in Show's lung) and saw blood on her hands. Lambert was afraid of blood; her knees went out from under her and she fell to the floor shaking.9

Lambert began to crawl to the bedroom door. Show pleaded with Lambert not to leave her there, however, so Lambert grabbed Show by the wrist and pulled her toward the front door. But as Lambert stepped outside the apartment, still holding onto Show, Buck pulled Show back into the apartment.

Lambert continued to flee the apartment. After she descended a couple of steps, however, she collided with Yunkin. Yunkin shook her and asked what happened to her hands. She told him that Buck stabbed Show. Yunkin exclaimed "Oh, fuck," took Lambert to the bottom of the stairs, told her to sit there, and bounded up the stairs toward Show's apartment. As she waited, Lambert heard Yunkin yell "You fuck'n bitch," and "Your ass is done now, bitch."10

Lambert eventually heard the front door slam. Yunkin bounded down the stairs and told Lambert he was going to get the car; Buck followed, with blood on her clothes and the knife in her hands. She stared at Lambert, and Lambert retreated. Yunkin yelled "Tabby! Get her!" and Lambert began to run.

Lambert did not know where she was running, but she eventually came out along a road. Yunkin sped out of the condominium complex and picked up Lambert and Buck. Yunkin was saying "Oh, shit!" because he had passed Hazel Show as he was driving out of the condominium complex and she had looked right at him. He then pushed Lambert's head down because they were passing Show's school bus.

The three of them drove to Lambert and Yunkin's home. Buck and Yunkin put their bloody clothes in the trash can. A dispute arose over whether Show was dead and, if so, who had killed her. Yunkin said that Buck had killed Show. Buck said that Show was dead, but she was not sure whether she or Yunkin had killed her.

Eventually, Yunkin and Lambert met with Buck again and refined their alibi story. They also came across a newspaper that contained news of Show's death. Upon learning the news, Lambert testified, Yunkin and Buck sang a mocking song and laughed hysterically.

Lambert admitted that upon her arrest she told the police at least two false versions of what happened, the alibi story and the version in which Buck was solely responsible for Show's murder and Yunkin had little involvement. She told the police the latter story because Yunkin was afraid of going to prison for the rest of his life and he told Lambert that she would receive less time because she was a pregnant woman. As a result, she agreed to cover up Yunkin's involvement.

To support her case, Lambert also relied (in addition to her own testimony) on expert testimony concerning Show's death, evidence tending to show that Yunkin had violent propensities, and a document that allegedly passed between her and Yunkin while they were both in prison awaiting trial. The document was comprised of twenty-nine questions posed by Lambert to Yunkin with answers inscribed next to them. It contained, for example, the following:

6) [Question:] I don't understand! Why not tell about Laurie? Are you afraid you couldn't? Did she look scary dead-like Tressa? I want to go home and have my baby twins! What if one of them dies because they need Mommy? I don't want to cover up for you. I never should have agreed, and I'm mad, and still sad! [Answer:] Yes and Yes.

7) [Question:] It's not my fault that things went wrong (our prank) Friday morning! Do you even care? I still blame you and Tabby! [Answer:] Just wish it didn't happen.

....

10) [Question:] I know I'm not an angel, but, Lawrence, I never get mad enough to kill! Your temper blew, [and you] hurt her, this time so bad that she can't get better. To me, it's a surprise it was on her, and she will never live again! I wanted to get god-damn Tabby away from her, [you] got in the bedroom and blew up [and] went decided to do things your way-violent! That should've been me that you killed. I hate you! [Answer:] I don't hate anyone. God said, it is wrong to hate.

PCRA Decision (attachment). Yunkin admitted, upon cross examination, that he and Lambert had passed a document back and forth through the prison law library in which he answered questions that she asked. He testified, however, that the document presented to him at trial, the "29 Questions," appeared tampered with and different from the document he recalled exchanging with Lambert. App. 321. He claimed, for example, that he had never seen the sixth question or tenth question.

Yunkin testified that in the document that passed between him and Lambert, Lambert had written the questions in pencil and he had written all his answers in pencil and then traced over every other word in ink so that they could not be changed. But Lambert's expert testified that there was no indication of any pencil writing on the 29 Questions, and the questions and answers were written with two different pens. After the Commonwealth had an expert from the Pennsylvania State Police crime lab examine the document, Lambert and the government entered into a stipulation that there were no erasures or graphite on the document. The Commonwealth conceded that if its expert were called to the stand, he would essentially agree with Lambert's expert.

To bolster her argument that the 29 Questions showed it was Yunkin who murdered Show, Lambert elicited testimony that Yunkin was a violent individual. Yunkin himself testified that he had hit Lambert three times, though he said it was accidental all but once. And Lambert testified that Yunkin wanted to fight an individual named Brad Heiser, Show's boyfriend at the time of her death.

Lambert also called experts to testify to the circumstances surrounding Show's death. John C. Balshy, a crime scene expert, testified that the letters "T" and "B" appeared written in blood on the door next to where Show's body lay when she died. He opined that Show leaned over and wrote the letters to identify Tabatha Buck as her assailant.

Lambert also offered expert testimony tending to show that Show could not have said "Michelle did it" because she was probably unconscious and, in any case, physically unable to articulate those words. Dr. Isidore Mihalakis testified that, given Show's wounds, she would have become unconscious "considerably less than a half hour" after sustaining her injuries. App. 388. Moreover, Dr. Mihalakis testified that the wounds to Show's throat would have hindered her ability to speak. He also testified that it was "extremely unlikely" that a female could have wielded the knife with enough strength to break the tip off, as had happened to the knife used to kill Show.

Before resting her case, Lambert moved for a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. She argued, among other things, that the Commonwealth knowingly elicited perjured testimony from Yunkin regarding the 29 Questions. The Court denied Lambert's motion and, on July 27, 1992, found Lambert guilty of first degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit murder.11

The sentencing phase ensued, and Judge Stengel declined to impose the death penalty. Instead, he sentenced Lambert for first degree murder to a statutorily mandated term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The next day, Lambert filed a set of motions for arrest of judgment and a new trial. Among her many arguments was that the Commonwealth had offered insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Judge Stengel denied Lambert's motions in a comprehensive opinion.

In the opinion, the Court extensively canvassed the evidence at trial and its factual findings. "The physical findings at the crime scene, the testimony at trial of the defendant, the trial testimony of Hazel Show, the history of ill will between the defendant and the victim and the circumstantial evidence developed at trial," the Court held, "all lead to the conclusion that defendant was guilty of the murder of Laurie Show." App. 1628-29.

Further, the Court held that the evidence that, according to Lambert, tended to show she did not murder Show-such as the 29 Questions-was insufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to her guilt. With respect to the 29 Questions, the Court found that "[a]t best, the questionnaire was inconclusive," and "[t]o simply say that the questionnaire could not be fully and satisfactorily explained does not mean that it created reasonable doubt." App. 1629-30.

Lambert subsequently obtained new counsel and filed a second set of post-verdict motions on October 3, 1994. She based her request for relief on claims of after-discovered evidence and her trial counsel's ineffectiveness.12 After holding a hearing, Judge Stengel again denied Lambert's post-verdict motions in another comprehensive opinion dated March 14, 1995.

In the decision, the Court concluded that "[t]rial counsel's representation of Lisa Michelle Lambert was professional, diligent, and thoughtful." App.2076. With respect to the alleged "after-discovered evidence" — evidence that the Commonwealth revoked Yunkin's plea agreement (in which he agreed to plead guilty to hindering apprehension) and Yunkin agreed to plead guilty to third degree murder because the Commonwealth determined that he was not fully truthful at trial-the Court explained:

This issue boils down to whether Mr. Yunkin's testimony at the Lambert trial was credible. Mr. Yunkin testified that he was not present in the Show condominium at the time of the killing. The testimony of independent witnesses would seem to establish that he was truthful in this regard. A manager at a nearby McDonald's saw him at or about the time of the murder, which supported his story that he dropped Ms. Lambert and Ms. Buck off along the road near the Show residence and then went to McDonald's for breakfast.

Mr. Yunkin's story that he was not present at the time of the killing was also supported by the neighbors who saw two figures of about the same height walking together across a large grassy area from the Show residence toward the road. By height and build they matched, generally, a description of Ms. Lambert and Ms. Buck. Mr. Yunkin is significantly taller than either of those two women and the witnesses testified that the two figures seen walking across the grassy area were of about the same height, that being in the 5'1" to 5'5" range. Therefore, on the subject of whether Mr. Yunkin was in the Show residence at the time of the killing, Mr. Yunkin would appear to have been truthful. At least, his story was supported by independent witnesses.

App.2073. Yet "[a]s to whether Mr. Yunkin was aware of the plan to do harm to Ms. Show," the Court explained, "he was decidedly incredible on this issue." Thus the Court held that the "after-discovered" evidence (Yunkin's plea to third degree murder) would not have had any material effect on the outcome of the case because the facts adduced at trial were fully consistent with his plea.

Lambert appealed from the judgment denying her second set of post-verdict motions. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, and Lambert filed a petition seeking allocatur from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied Lambert's petition on July 2, 1996.

Lambert filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court on September 12, 1996. The case was assigned to Judge Dalzell, who appointed counsel to represent Lambert and directed counsel to file an amended petition.

The subsequently-filed amended petition advanced numerous grounds for relief, including claims that Lambert had not previously advanced in state court. The Commonwealth objected to Lambert's petition, arguing that she had failed to exhaust her state court remedies and had committed insurmountable procedural default.

Judge Dalzell deferred consideration of the Commonwealth's exhaustion argument while, in the meantime, permitting broad discovery and conducting a fourteen-day evidentiary hearing. At the end of the hearing, the District Court entered an order granting Lambert's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, releasing Lambert from prison, and barring the Commonwealth from retrying her. In an Order and Memorandum Opinion that it issued a few weeks later, on April 21, 1997, the Court offered several bases for its conclusion that the habeas statute's exhaustion requirement did not preclude the Court from granting Lambert's petition. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 962 F.Supp. 1521, 1553-55 (E.D.Pa.1997).

This Court vacated the District Court's judgment, however, and found that Lambert's failure to exhaust available state court remedies required the District Court to dismiss her petition without prejudice. We held that Lambert had not pursued her remedies under the PCRA for some of her claims and her habeas petition therefore contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Thus the Supreme Court's decision in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), required the District Court to dismiss such a "mixed petition." See Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 1998).

Lambert filed a PCRA petition on February 2, 1998 in the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County.13 Lambert presented 257 claims for relief in the PCRA Court: 157 allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, 72 allegations of after-discovered evidence, and 28 allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The PCRA Court held eight weeks of hearings and, on August 24, 1998, issued a 322-page opinion in which it denied Lambert's petition for relief.

Lambert filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the PCRA Court on December 18, 2000. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d 306 (Pa.Super.2000). Before addressing the merits of Lambert's appeal, however, the Superior Court raised sua sponte the timeliness of Lambert's PCRA petition.

The PCRA requires petitions to be filed "within one year of the date the judgment becomes final," except in certain statutorily defined circumstances. See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9545(b). Lambert filed her petition approximately sixteen months after her judgment of conviction became final. It appears that the parties did not raise the statute of limitations as an issue in front of the PCRA Court, however, and the Court did not address it.

The Superior Court determined that, based largely on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of the PCRA in Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214 (1999), Lambert's PCRA petition was untimely.14 The Superior Court decided to review the merits of the PCRA Court's decision, however, because "the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the PCRA court, the Commonwealth and counsel did not have the benefit of" the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Fahy (which was decided on August 27, 1999, about a year after the PCRA Court issued its decision).15 After reviewing Lambert's petition on the merits, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the PCRA Court. 765 A.2d at 363.

Lambert did not petition the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for an allowance of an appeal from the Superior Court's judgment. Rather, she filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court on January 29, 2001.

The case again came before Judge Dalzell, who determined that the proceedings before the PCRA Court and Superior Court were null and void, and therefore entitled to no deference, because those courts had no jurisdiction over Lambert's PCRA petition due to its untimeliness. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 175 F.Supp.2d 776, 786-87 (E.D.Pa.2001). Accordingly, the District Court reinstated its findings of fact and conclusions of law from its earlier decision granting Lambert's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the Court gave the parties approximately a month to notify it if they sought additional discovery and a hearing. Id. at 791.

On January 18, 2002, however, Judge Dalzell gave way to the Commonwealth's fourth motion seeking his recusal. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 205 F.R.D. 180 (E.D.Pa.2002). Lambert's petition was consequently transferred to Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After holding a hearing on the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss, Judge Brody denied Lambert's petition and dismissed it with prejudice.

Judge Brody concluded that, contrary to Judge Dalzell's previous decision, the PCRA Court's determinations were not null and void and were entitled to deference under AEDPA. After reviewing Lambert's claims accordingly, Judge Brody concluded that they were without merit. The District Court granted Lambert a certificate of appealability, and Lambert timely appealed. The Commonwealth also timely filed a cross-appeal.

The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the District Court's order dismissing Lambert's habeas petition is a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Yet Lambert must surmount an additional hurdle before we can properly exercise appellate jurisdiction over her appeal. We only have jurisdiction if this Court or a District Court has properly issued a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). See United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 261-62 (3d Cir.2000) (en banc).16

A COA may issue only upon "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If "a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). In addition, a COA must "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy" that standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

Here, the District Court failed to specify which of the voluminous issues Lambert raised in her habeas petition satisfy the standard for issuance of a COA. The Court concluded: "Although in very different contexts, two federal judges have examined the claims of the petitioner Lambert and have reached different outcomes. Accordingly, a COA will be GRANTED." Lambert v. Blackwell, 2003 WL 1718511, at *56 (E.D.Pa. April 1, 2003).

In the ordinary course, we would remand to the District Court to clarify its order to comply with the specificity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). See Szuchon v. Lehman, 273 F.3d 299, 311 n. 5 (3d Cir.2001). Where the parties have fully briefed the substantive issues before bringing to our attention that the COA was inadequately specific, however, this Court has viewed the District Court's certificate as a nullity and construed the petitioner's notice of appeal as a request for us to issue a COA. Id. We follow that course here.

Lambert has raised several issues on appeal. On each issue, two federal district court judges-albeit in different procedural postures-reached differing conclusions as to whether constitutional error at trial warranted granting habeas relief. As to each of these issues, which we discuss seriatim below, we will grant a COA. Because the District Court relied exclusively on the state court record and did not hold an evidentiary hearing, our review is plenary. See Moore v. Morton, 255 F.3d 95, 103 (3d Cir.2001).

Lambert and the Commonwealth raise numerous issues in their cross-appeals and offer several arguments, often in the alternative, supporting their respective positions. We first address the Commonwealth's arguments that we cannot reach the merits of Lambert's claims and must dismiss her petition for procedural reasons. We have already rejected one of those arguments, that we lack jurisdiction because Lambert's claims do not warrant the issuance of a certificate of appealability. For the reasons explained below, we also reject the Commonwealth's argument that Lambert failed to exhaust her available state remedies because she did not seek allocatur from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to appeal from the Superior Court's judgment affirming the PCRA Court's dismissal of her PCRA petition.17

We next address Lambert's arguments regarding the amount of deference we must afford the state courts' determinations in the PCRA proceedings. We conclude that we must defer to the state courts' determinations, and we apply that deference to Lambert's claims.

A state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies before a federal court may grant him habeas relief. The Supreme Court first articulated this requirement in Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), and it is now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). That provision states:

(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that— (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or

(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The statute further provides that "[a]n applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).18

The exhaustion doctrine "turns on an inquiry into what procedures are `available' under state law." O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 847, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). And the Supreme Court has declined to interpret the "any available procedure" language of § 2254(c) to require "a state prisoner to invoke any possible avenue of state court review." Id. at 844, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (emphasis in original). Thus "state prisoners do not have to invoke extraordinary remedies when those remedies are alternatives to the standard review process and where the state courts have not provided relief through those remedies in the past." Id. (citing Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 249-50, 92 S.Ct. 407, 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971) (per curiam)). "Section 2254(c) requires only that state prisoners give state courts a fair opportunity to act on their claims." Id. (emphasis in original).

In O'Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that a petitioner must seek review in the Illinois Supreme Court in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement even though the court's review is discretionary. The Court found that review in the Illinois Supreme Court was a "normal, simple, and established part of the State's appellate review process." 526 U.S. at 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728. As a result, the petitioner had to seek review in order to give the state courts a "full opportunity to resolve any constitutional claims." Id. In other words, "the creation of a discretionary review system does not, without more, make review in the Illinois Supreme Court unavailable." Id. at 848, 119 S.Ct. 1728.

The Court took pains, however, to state that "there is nothing in the exhaustion doctrine requiring federal courts to ignore a state law or rule providing that a given procedure is not available." Id. at 847-48, 119 S.Ct. 1728. Justice Souter interpreted this statement as leaving

open the possibility that a state prisoner is [] free to skip a procedure even when a state court has occasionally employed it to provide relief, so long as the State has identified the procedure as outside the standard review process and has plainly said that it need not be sought for the purpose of exhaustion. It is not obvious that either comity or precedent requires otherwise.

Id. at 850, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (Souter, J., concurring); see also id. at 861, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (Stevens, J., dissenting); id. at 864, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (Breyer, J., dissenting). As an example, Justice Souter pointed to the following pronouncement from the South Carolina Supreme Court:

[I]n all appeals from criminal convictions or post-conviction relief matters, a litigant shall not be required to petition for rehearing and certiorari following an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals in order to be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies respecting a claim of error. Rather, when the claim has been presented to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and relief has been denied, the litigant shall be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies.

In re Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal and Post-Conviction Relief Cases, 321 S.C. 563, 471 S.E.2d 454 (1990).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, apparently taking its cue from Justice Souter's concurrence, issued the following order on May 9, 2000:

[W]e hereby recognize that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reviews criminal as well as civil appeals. Further, review of a final order of the Superior Court is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and an appeal to this court will be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor. Pa.R.A.P. 1114. Further, we hereby recognize that criminal and post-conviction relief litigants have petitioned and do routinely petition this Court for allowance of appeal upon Superior Court's denial of relief in order to exhaust all available state remedies for purposes of federal habeas corpus relief. In recognition of the above, we hereby declare that in all appeals from criminal convictions or post-conviction relief matters, a litigant shall not be required to petition for rehearing or allowance of appeal following an adverse decision by the Superior Court in order to be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies respecting a claim of error. When a claim has been denied relief in a final order, the litigant shall be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies for purposes of federal habeas corpus relief. This Order shall be effective immediately.

In re Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal and Post-Conviction Relief Cases, No. 218 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1 (Pa. May 9, 2000) ("Order No. 218"). Several Pennsylvania district courts have held that due to Order No. 218 a state prisoner need not petition the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for allocatur in order to exhaust state court remedies and seek habeas relief in federal court. See Wilson v. Vaughn, 304 F.Supp.2d 652 (E.D.Pa.2004); Lor v. Varner, 2003 WL 22845413 (E.D.Pa. Nov.26, 2003); Lambert v. Blackwell, 2003 WL 1718511 (E.D.Pa. April 1, 2003); Leon v. Benning, 2003 WL 21294901 (E.D.Pa. Feb.24, 2003); Mattis v. Vaughn, 128 F.Supp.2d 249 (E.D.Pa.2001); Blasi v. Attorney General, 120 F.Supp.2d 451 (M.D.Pa.2000). Other Circuits have reached similar conclusions with regard to comparable state supreme court rules. See Adams v. Holland, 330 F.3d 398, 401-02 (6th Cir.2003) (Tennessee); Randolph v. Kemna, 276 F.3d 401, 404 (8th Cir.2002) (Missouri); Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1009-10 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (Arizona). We reserved judgment on this issue in Wenger v. Frank, 266 F.3d 218 (3d Cir.2001) and Villot v. Varner, 373 F.3d 327, 338 n. 14 (3d Cir.2004). We now hold that Order No. 218 renders review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court "unavailable" for purposes of exhausting state court remedies under § 2254(c).

Order No. 218 serves to remove review of criminal and collateral appeals from the "normal" and "established" appellate review procedure in Pennsylvania. As Judge Van Antwerpen put it in Mattis v. Vaughn, Order No. 218 is the something "more" that makes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's discretionary review system "unavailable." 128 F.Supp.2d at 259. Consequently, petitioners need not seek review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in order to give the Pennsylvania courts a "full opportunity to resolve any constitutional claims."

Here, the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA Court's judgment on December 18, 2000. During the pendency of Lambert's appeal in the Superior Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued Order No. 218. Consequently, she did not seek an allowance of an appeal from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court within the necessary thirty-day time period. Instead, she filed a federal habeas petition on January 29, 2001. We conclude that, due to Order No 218, Lambert exhausted her available state court remedies.

AEDPA requires federal courts collaterally reviewing state proceedings to afford considerable deference to state courts' legal and factual determinations. Specifically, it provides:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In addition, "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" unless the petitioner rebuts "the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

The Supreme Court interpreted § 2254(d)(1)'s deference to state legal determinations in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). The Court interpreted AEDPA's "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" to mean "the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision." Id. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A state-court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the state court (1) "contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme] Court's cases"' or (2) "confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a [different] result." Id. at 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A state-court decision "involve[s] an unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law if the state court (1) "identifies the correct governing legal rule from [the Supreme] Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular ... case"; or (2) "unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply." Id. at 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

The Supreme Court addressed AEDPA's factual review provisions in Miller-El v. Cockrell. There, the Supreme Court interpreted § 2254(d)(2) to mean that "a decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding." 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Yet "deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review." Id. In other words, "[d]eference does not by definition preclude relief." Id. Thus a federal habeas court can "disagree with a state court's credibility determination." Id.; see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 519, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2539, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (rejecting state court's factual determination under § 2254(e)(1) and 2254(d)(2)).

Despite the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Miller-El and Wiggins, a comprehensive interpretation of AEDPA's factual review scheme has yet to emerge from the federal courts. Specifically, the relationship between the standards enunciated in § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1) remains unclear. See Green v. White, 232 F.3d 671, 672 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000).

On their face, we discern little material difference between a reasonableness determination and a presumption of correctness as they express the same fundamental principle of deference to state court findings. Courts have tended to lump the two provisions together as generally indicative of the deference AEDPA requires of state court factual determinations. See, e.g., Martini v. Hendricks, 348 F.3d 360, 363 (3d Cir.2003); Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 245-46, 249-50 (3d Cir.2002). Yet it is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that we must "give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 404, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 778, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) (Scalia, J., plurality opinion); Borman v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 946 F.2d 1031, 1035 (3d Cir.1991) ("It is an `elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative.'") (quoting Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, 99 S.Ct. 675, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979)). In fact, the language of § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1) implies an important distinction: § 2254(d)(2)'s reasonableness determination turns on a consideration of the totality of the "evidence presented in the state-court proceeding," while § 2254(e)(1) contemplates a challenge to the state court's individual factual determinations, including a challenge based wholly or in part on evidence outside the state trial record. See generally Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2004); Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 951 n. 17 (5th Cir.2001).

We therefore read § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1) together as addressing two somewhat different inquiries. The fundamental prerequisite to granting the writ on factual grounds is consideration of the evidence relied upon in the state court proceeding. Section 2254(d)(2) mandates the federal habeas court to assess whether the state court's determination was reasonable or unreasonable given that evidence. If the state court's decision based on such a determination is unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding, habeas relief is warranted.

Within this overarching standard, of course, a petitioner may attack specific factual determinations that were made by the state court, and that are subsidiary to the ultimate decision. Here, section 2254(e)(1) comes into play, instructing that the state court's determination must be afforded a presumption of correctness that the petitioner can rebut only by clear and convincing evidence. In this inquiry, a petitioner may develop clear and convincing evidence by way of a hearing in federal court as long as he satisfies the necessary prerequisites. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). In the final analysis however, even if a state court's individual factual determinations are overturned, what factual findings remain to support the state court decision must still be weighed under the overarching standard of section 2254(d)(2).19

With these principles in mind, we turn to the specifics of this case. Lambert argues that we should not afford the PCRA Court and Superior Court factual determinations the deference set forth in § 2254(d) and § 2254(e)(1), for two reasons. First, she argues that the PCRA Court and Superior Court decisions are null and void-and therefore not entitled to deference-because those courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain her untimely PCRA petition.20 See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214 (1999). Second, Lambert argues that the PCRA Court's factual determinations are not entitled to deference because the Court prohibited her from cross-examining witnesses at the PCRA hearing.21

On its face, AEDPA does not provide that a federal habeas court should, before affording deference to state court determinations, evaluate the procedural adequacy of state court proceedings or whether the state court/properly exercised its jurisdiction. This omission is particularly conspicuous in light of the pre-AEDPA federal habeas statute.

Before AEDPA amended the federal habeas statute in 1996, state court findings of fact were "presumed correct if there was (1) a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, (2) made by a state court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a proceeding to which the petitioner and the state were parties, (4) and the state court's determination is evidenced by a written finding, opinion, or other reliable and adequate indicia." Carpenter v. Vaughn, 296 F.3d 138, 149 (3d Cir.2002). This presumption did not apply if the petitioner established, inter alia, that (i) "the fact-finding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) (1994) (superseded); or (ii) "the State court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or over the person of the applicant in the State court proceeding," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(4) (1994) (superseded).22

The current statute simply states that federal courts must defer to legal and factual determinations "with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). "We have interpreted § 2254(d)'s `adjudication on the merits' language to mean that `when, although properly preserved by the defendant, the state court has not reached the merits of a claim thereafter presented to a federal habeas court, the deferential standards provided by AEDPA ... do not apply.'" Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707, 718 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2001)).

AEDPA has changed the procedural framework for deference in three ways. First, AEDPA now requires federal courts to defer to state court legal determinations, whereas federal courts used to review state legal determinations de novo. See, e.g., Ahmad v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir.1986). Second, the habeas statute no longer explicitly conditions federal deference to state court factual findings on whether the state court held a hearing. See Mendiola v. Schomig, 224 F.3d 589, 592-93 (7th Cir.2000). Third, the statute no longer contains the eight prerequisites to deference that appeared in the superseded §§ 2254(d)(1)-(8). See Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d at 951 (holding that a "full and fair hearing" is not a precondition to according 2254(e)(1)'s presumption of correctness to a state habeas court's findings of fact); but see Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d at 966 (Dennis, J., dissenting); 17A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4265.2 (2d ed. 1994) ("Indeed the new statute does not even require that the state court that made the determination have been a court of competent jurisdiction. Presumably the courts will continue to insist on that and it is likely that some of the other elements that were in the old statute but not in the new one will be read back into it by the courts.").

On its face, therefore, the amended habeas statute appears to obviate any need to consider Lambert's jurisdictional and procedural arguments against our deferring to the PCRA Court's determinations; AEDPA eliminated the threshold language eliminating the presumption of correctness when "the State court lacked jurisdiction" or "the factfinding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing." We decline to conclude, however, that state court jurisdiction or procedures are entirely irrelevant in a federal court's habeas review of state court determinations.

Even under AEDPA, federal courts are to defer regarding claims "adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings." This implies that the claim must be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, as opposed to a kangaroo court or an administrative body masquerading as a court. At the same time, however, AEDPA's amendments to the habeas statute surely lower the level of scrutiny a federal court is entitled to apply to the issue of state court jurisdiction. For purposes of applying deference under section 2254(d) and (e), when a valid state court judgment exists a federal habeas court should generally presume that the state court properly exercised its jurisdiction.23

Similarly, the procedures a state court applies when adjudicating a petitioner's claims may also be relevant during habeas review. The extent to which a state court afforded a defendant adequate procedural means to develop a factual record-whether the defendant was afforded a "full and fair hearing," to put it in the parlance of the pre-AEDPA statute-may well affect whether a state court's factual determination was "reasonable" in "light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding" or whether the petitioner has adequately rebutted a presumption that the state court's determination is correct. See Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1000-01 (9th Cir.2004); cf. Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d at 951 n. 17; Mendiola, 224 F.3d at 592 ("If a state court's finding rests on thin air, the petitioner will have little difficulty satisfying the standards for relief under § 2254"); Weaver v. Thompson, 197 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir.1999) (statements in the trial judge's letter were not "factual determinations" because they were not "subject to any of the usual judicial procedures designed to ensure accuracy"). In other words, the extent to which a state court provides a "full and fair hearing" is no longer a threshold requirement before deference applies; but it might be a consideration while applying deference under § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1).

We need not comprehensively or exhaustively address how deeply a federal habeas court may plumb the adequacy of state court jurisdiction and procedures in deciding how to apply section 2254(d) and (e)(2). We conclude in the particular circumstances of this case that no jurisdictional concerns obviate the application of AEDPA's deferential scheme of review. Nor do any procedural issues lower the level of deference we must afford.

First, the Pennsylvania courts affirmatively exercised jurisdiction over Lambert's PCRA petition. Judge Dalzell concluded that the PCRA Court and Superior Court lacked jurisdiction under Pennsylvania law and that, under Pennsylvania law, "`[w]here a court lacks jurisdiction in a case, any judgment regarding the case is void.'" Lambert v. Blackwell, 175 F.Supp.2d at 787 (quoting Rieser v. Glukowsky, 435 Pa.Super. 530, 646 A.2d 1221 (1994)). But after AEDPA eliminated jurisdictionally-based challenges to state court decisions, a federal habeas court has at most a circumscribed role in reviewing whether a state court properly applied its own law when it explicitly decided to exercise jurisdiction.24

To be sure, the Superior Court's decision appears to be internally contradictory. The Court determined that Lambert's PCRA petition was untimely and the PCRA Court had "no jurisdiction to address the substantive merits of the petition." Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d at 319. Yet the Court decided to entertain Lambert's appeal and review the PCRA Court's judgment. Id. at 322-23. That decision was motivated in part by a recognition that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Fahy, supra, that established a jurisdictional bar to untimely PCRA filings did not issue until after Lambert had filed her PCRA application. In other words, the Superior Court effectively determined to carve out an exception to Fahy's retroactive application, at least in the somewhat unusual circumstances of Lambert's case. 765 A.2d at 322-23. A federal court will normally defer to a state court's decision about retroactivity of state decisions. See Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001). In short, the Superior Court decided to retain and exercise jurisdiction. The Superior Court's opinion concluded by stating: "Based upon the foregoing, we hold that Appellant has not met her burden under the PCRA statute. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's order denying Appellant the collateral relief she requested. Order affirmed." Id. at 363. Whatever our residual ability to examine state court jurisdiction in other instances, the exercise of jurisdiction by the state court in this instance does not call into question the adequacy of the state court proceeding under section 2254(d) and (e).25

We turn to Lambert's second argument. Several prosecutorial and law enforcement witnesses, who Lambert alleges engaged in extensive misconduct, testified at the PCRA hearing. Lambert argues that the PCRA Court refused to "allow Lambert to cross-examine the perpetrators of the prosecutorial misconduct." Lambert Br. 34. She contends that the PCRA Court's credibility determination are not worthy of deference because "credibility determinations of witnesses who are never subjected to the crucible of cross-examination are not entitled to deference." Id. She cites cases standing for the proposition that cross-examination provides "the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested." Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974).

We find Lambert's argument, as she frames it, extremely misleading. Cross-examination is "[t]he questioning of a witness at a trial or hearing by the party opposed to the party who called the witness to testify." Black's Law Dictionary 383 (7th ed.1999). (emphasis added). The PCRA Court did not preclude Lambert from cross-examining any witnesses. Rather, the Court applied Pennsylvania law on evidence and, except for one instance, did not allow Lambert to ask leading questions to the witnesses she called on direct examination. PCRA Court Decision 47-59. Lambert does not complain that she was not allowed to cross-examine Commonwealth witnesses.

More importantly, however, the fact-finding process was not inexorably undermined by the PCRA Court's evidentiary determination. We have extensively reviewed the record of the PCRA hearing. The PCRA Court's decision not to allow Lambert to ask leading questions of witnesses she called on direct examination in no way impugns the Court's factual determinations.26 That is not to say that in certain instances a court's prohibition on asking leading questions could not undermine to some extent a state court's factual determinations. This is simply not such a case.

We discern in Lambert's brief twelve claims supporting her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Those are the claims for which we grant a COA.27 We address them in turn.

As a preliminary matter, we note that Lambert relies on the same record in her federal habeas proceedings as she did in the state PCRA proceedings. She has made no attempt to augment the record. We therefore simply apply § 2254(d)(2)'s reasonableness standard to the PCRA Court's factual determinations. With respect to the trial court's factual determinations, however, we apply a two-tiered analysis because Lambert seeks to rebut the trial court's findings through evidence that was not before that court, namely evidence developed at the PCRA proceedings. Thus, when reviewing trial court factual determinations, we first determine whether they were reasonable in light of the record before the trial court. If reasonable, we then look to whether Lambert has rebutted the finding with clear and convincing evidence adduced at the PCRA hearing.

As we explained above, Yunkin testified that Lambert wore his sweatpants-which the police eventually obtained and which contained Show's blood on them-the morning of Show's murder. Lambert argues that the Commonwealth-specifically the prosecutor, John Kenneff-knew that Lambert did not wear Yunkin's sweatpants that morning and nonetheless elicited testimony from Yunkin to the contrary. She also argues that the Commonwealth "switched" the sweatpants at the PCRA Hearing. That is, she argues that the Commonwealth replaced the sweatpants from the trial with a different pair, which it offered into evidence at the PCRA Hearing and told the PCRA Court were the same sweatpants as those from the trial.

a. Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony

The Supreme Court has long held that the state's knowing use of perjured testimony to obtain a conviction violates the Fourteenth Amendment. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). In United States v. Agurs, the Supreme Court characterized this line of cases as finding it fundamentally unfair to the accused where "the prosecution's case includes perjured testimony and [ ] the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the perjury." 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). "The same is true when the government, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears at trial." United States v. Biberfeld, 957 F.2d 98, 102 (3d Cir.1992) (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153, 92 S.Ct. 763).

In such circumstances, the conviction must be set aside "if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury." Id. In United States v. Bagley, the Court explained: "Although this rule is stated in terms that treat the knowing use of perjured testimony as error subject to harmless error review, it may as easily be stated as a materiality standard under which the fact that testimony is perjured is considered material unless failure to disclose it would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." 473 U.S. 667, 679-80, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).

Thus, in order to make out a constitutional violation Lambert must show that (1) Yunkin committed perjury; (2) the government knew or should have known of his perjury; (3) the testimony went uncorrected; and (4) there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the verdict. The state trial court and PCRA Court concluded that Lambert had in fact worn Yunkin's sweatpants and Yunkin therefore did not perjure himself. These factual determinations preclude a finding of constitutional error, and we review them under the applicable AEDPA standard.

At trial Lambert's counsel, Roy Shirk, strongly urged Judge Stengel to conclude that Lambert did not wear Yunkin's clothes on the day of Show's murder, and he developed testimony to support this argument. He elicited testimony from Yunkin's friend, Vincent Orsi, that Yunkin would wear the sweatpants "to bed, bumming around the house." App. 950. Lambert testified that although she told the police that she wore a red flannel shirt and black sweatpants the morning of Show's murder, she had lied to them in order to protect Yunkin. To contradict the reason Yunkin gave for why Lambert wore his clothing-i.e., she was well into her pregnancy-Shirk elicited testimony that Lambert was barely "showing" at that stage of her pregnancy. And he had the following exchange with Yunkin on cross-examination:

Q. So basically what you are telling us here this morning, Michelle was wearing all your clothing?

A. Correct.

Q. The sweat pants were yours.

A. Correct.

Q. The red flannel was yours.

A. Correct.

Q. The jergo was yours.

A. Correct.

Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked Commonwealth Exhibit 10. That's your jacket?

A. Yes, it is. Extra large.

Q. Extra large?

A. Correct.

Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked Commonwealth Exhibit 9. They are your sweat pants?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact you used to wear them to bed and you used to wear them while you were lounging around. You used to wear these quite a bit, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you indicated that Michelle was pregnant at the time, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You indicated she was seven months pregnant.

A. Around there, yes.

Q. Around six months?

A. Between six and seven.

Q. She wasn't really heavy at the time, was she? She wasn't showing a lot.

A. Not really, no.

Q. But it's your testimony that she left the house that day basically clothed in your clothing.

A. True.

App. 273-74.

During his closing argument, Shirk argued that all the evidence suggested that Lambert did not wear Yunkin's clothing. The relevant portion of his closing went as follows:

The assumption we're supposed to make is that my client, due to her pregnancy, wore Mr. Yunkin's clothes, perhaps to be more comfortable because she was pregnant and obviously bigger than she normally is; although Chief Glick, in his testimony, indicated she really wasn't showing that much. I find it, or the defense finds it, incredible.

Would you hold up that jacket.

Mr. Jeffries: (Complying with the request.) Mr. Shirk: That is for a fray in the morning that was going to last, whatever, an hour or two, three, she would wear this for comfort; and the clothing she put on to wear the rest of the day, or at least the clothing that Detective-Trooper Solt indicated he believed she had on th