Stephen Edward May v. David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, et al.

Can a court find counsel’s conduct to be effective under Strickland v. Washington by positing strategies that hypothetically could have, but demonstrably did not, motivate counsel’s conduct?

Is counsel’s uninformed decision on a crucial issue—such as consenting to post-mistrial deliberations by discharged jurors made without any investigation of law and facts—a strategic judgment entitled to deference under Strickland?

Is counsel’s failure to preserve an obvious federal constitutional challenge to a state statute imposing on the defendant the burden to prove his innocent intent deficient performance under Strickland?