’WPC :°•p]ēmkL„;śßYrļ\zxg±“°lSĀęŽŪž„ė–{že}öȲjd“×ü5Ź[Oƒ‚×ø:OčĄs՘iIķąž[:wĪļTxEi†śŃį“4zņĻ$ø&—Äó …“cī\ĖéhšŠč45®jĢŲr>€Kļ_J@Žr6° ó†(‹}œeĘ|ƒČŌ ņ£õ‘ĻĒÆ’ŲœČyÕGD2KEv?‹u¹ÅO^x˜Ž4?÷(gnŖHt唋mg“ė p”w†UEä (õ…4h†‚±q)×ĆĒ“’¤īŒCO~ÉŅśOÖi¢ęf(kc°@ć?lvĆāO,ėI…OĀ£ś™įŗ«ŗĘöż²ķQž¾fČ<£/šøGL‚Ņ4Op'ĢŽ†åŗ½†łœwU£óŸ¦ėŻ ckÓķƒéų%4Ė*łö]Ķ”"Õł}-š"–śVŠ7ž);öˆæŃü£ %r”{ĮN\d|õ2ī¤S fŽÉ<ū1ŹcÜėź¶+ȝż –Kg,)ö‚„ƶPͰO”1‹ĻŌ×AŁ×µ3]ƒSæ@üöb^¶ÉLxLĮµ×¶Ų|fD$\%µR@ä­óčŠ?µ{P|a:b#Į\ % 0D# 0ˆg UNļ N= ? zG ŅĮ Į z“ Ņ ^ ß Ęė ʱ ĘwĘ=wN4 E,. m0000000000000000000000bGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0ėOOOO B:: 0¤W D3ū D-. 0K[[ AS¦Ęł 0¤ææ A«c˜HP LaserJet 4050ČČČČČČČČ0»($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó(`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptŲ¢+-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53j1,ąM¤  ”¤3|x ’U‹’ĄĄĄ- ł-(|G2Ķź$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€RĶ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ōēeņ»»Ō d(|3GŽ$££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€RĶ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_XYEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3GŽ$¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€RĶ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€RĶ»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼RĶ»»»ŌŃ8€±XXdģ»»d8Ńą@ttģąŌ‡īJœī»¼RĶŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@WW$ģąAT€KNOXVILLEŌ#†¼RĶ»īīJœ #ԈŠ Ö& ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąJanuary€22,€2002€SessionŠ üL ŠŌ‡X±X»¼RĶŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼RĶ»XX±#ŌMICHAEL€EUGENE€DUFFņņóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEņņóóŌ‡X±X»¼RĶŌó óŠ śJ ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņ€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyŠ ś J Šą@@ųųģąNo.€61563€€€€€Mary€Beth€Leibowitz,€JudgeŠ ę 6 ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` Aߊ Ŗś  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€E2000„03041„CCA„R3„PC€Š „õ  ŠŌ_ŌSeptember€11,€Ō_Ō2002Ō_ŌŌ_ŌŠ ‘į  ŠßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aߊ }Ķ  Šó óĢÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Michael€Eugene€Duff,€appeals€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Courtššs€denial€of€hisŠ xČ  Špetition€for€post„conviction€relief€from€his€convictions€for€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€oneŠ d“ Šcount€of€aggravated€kidnapping€for€which€he€received€Ō_ŌthreeŌ_Ō€twenty„five„year€Ō_ŌsentencesŌ_Ō€to€be€servedŠ P  Šconsecutively.€€This€court€affirmed€the€judgments€of€conviction€on€direct€appeal.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.Š <Œ ŠMichael€Eugene€Duffóó,€No.€03C01„9501„CR„00008,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€8,€Ō_Ō1996),Š (x Šņņapp.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€July€8,€1996).Ō_Ō€€Ō_ŌThe€petitioner€claims€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistanceŠ d Šof€counsel€because€his€trial€attorney€(1)€failed€to€call€a€DNA€serologist€to€testify€and€(2)€failed€toŠ P Špresent€witnesses€who€could€testify€about€€his€physical€appearance€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€WeŠ ģ< Šconclude€that€the€trial€courtššs€findings€are€insufficient€for€us€to€determine€whether€the€petitionerŠ Ų( Šreceived€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€reverse€the€trial€courtššs€judgment€and€remand€theŠ Ä Šcase€in€order€for€the€trial€court€to€make€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€consistent€with€thisŠ ° Šopinion.€Š œģ ŠÓŽÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed,€Caseó óŠ tÄ Šņ ņRemandedó óŠ `° ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼RĶ»ąX±‘#ŌŌ‡X±X.¼RĶŌJoseph€M.€Ō_ŌTiptonŌ_Ō,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņJames€Ō_ŌCurwoodŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌWittŌ_Ō,€Jr.óó€andŠ 8!ˆ  ŠņņNorma€McGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Š $"t! ŠĢGerald€L.€Ō_ŌGulleyŌ_Ō,€Jr.,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Michael€Eugene€Duff.Š ü#L# ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Ō_ŌAngeleŌ_Ō€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Š Ō%$!% ŠRandall€E.€Ō_ŌNicholsŌ_Ō,€District€Attorney€General;€and€G.€Scott€Green,€Assistant€District€AttorneyŠ Ą&"& ŠGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š ¬'ü"' ŠÓU ÓĢą@@OO&ģąņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼RĶ»XX±„ #ŌŌ‡X±X»¼RĶŌŠ „)Ō$) ŠĢņņóóŌ#†¼RĶ»XX±’#ŌÓ  ÓŌ€X±X»¼RĶŌą  ąThis€courtššs€opinion€in€the€petitionerššs€appeal€of€his€convictions€recounts€the€following€facts:Š \+¬&+ Šā āŠ H,˜',ż ŠŌ_ŌŌ_Ōą8  ąą8` Š Š ąą ø ąDuring€the€early€morning€hours€of€July€31,€1992,€the€victimŠ ° Šā āin€this€case€was€driving€on€Oak€Ridge€Highway€in€Knox€County€onŠ œģ Šher€way€home.€€A€car€[traveling]€behind€her€activated€a€blueŠ ˆŲ Šemergency€light.€€The€victim€assumed€that€the€car€behind€her€was€aŠ tÄ Špolice€officer€[signaling]€her€to€stop.€€Therefore,€she€pulled€off€to€theŠ `° Šside€of€the€highway€in€front€of€Shuckerššs€Restaurant.€€While€she€satŠ L œ Šin€her€car€waiting€for€who€she€thought€was€an€officer€of€the€law,€theŠ 8 ˆ Švictim€reached€in€her€purse€to€produce€her€driverššs€license.€€As€sheŠ $ t Šwas€searching€for€her€driverššs€license,€the€car€door€flew€open€and€aŠ  ` Šman€later€identified€as€the€appellant€hit€her€in€the€face€and€pushed€herŠ ü L  Šin€the€floor.€€Someone€else€got€into€the€passenger€side€of€her€car€andŠ č 8  Šheld€her€down.€€The€appellant€drove€the€victimššs€car€a€short€distanceŠ Ō$  Šbehind€the€closed€restaurant€where€she€had€originally€stopped€her€car.€Š Ą  ŠThe€victim€struggled€with€her€attackers€and€was€eventually€able€toŠ ¬ü  Šfight€her€way€out€of€her€car.€€She€ran€toward€a€hill€behind€theŠ ˜č  Šrestaurant.€€Under€a€violent€attack€of€nightmarish€proportions,€theŠ „Ō  Švictim€had€the€presence€of€mind€to€dial€š š911šš€on€the€cellular€phoneŠ pĄ Šwhich€she€had€in€her€purse.€€She€told€the€911€dispatcher€that€threeŠ \¬ Šmen€were€trying€to€rape€or€kill€her.€€At€approximately€ten€secondsŠ H˜ Šinto€the€emergency€call,€the€appellant€and€the€other€attackers€caughtŠ 4„ Šup€with€her,€threw€her€down,€and€proceeded€to€rape€her.€€The€victimŠ  p Štestified€that€the€appellant€got€directly€on€top€of€her€and€inserted€hisŠ  \ Špenis€inside€her.€€Another€one€of€the€assailants€also€raped€her€whileŠ ųH Šthe€defendant€held€her€down.€€The€victim€testified€that€the€twigs€of€aŠ ä4 Štree€branch€were€placed€in€her€vagina.ŠŠ ` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ąą ø ąIn€response€to€the€911€call,€officers€of€the€Knoxville€PoliceŠ Øų ŠDepartment€arrived€on€the€scene€and€found€the€victim€in€the€woodedŠ ”ä Šarea€on€top€of€an€embankment€behind€the€restaurant.€€The€victim€wasŠ €Š Štaken€to€the€emergency€room€where€she€was€examined€by€Dr.€RogerŠ l¼ ŠMillwood.€€Dr.€Millwood€removed€the€twigs€from€the€victimššs€vaginaŠ X Ø Šand€observed€that€the€victim€had€suffered€various€scratches,€bruises,Š D!” Šand€lacerations€on€her€body.€€There€was€no€vaginal€bleeding.€Š 0"€  ŠAlthough€a€rape€kit€was€completed,€Dr.€Millwood€saw€no€sperm€onŠ #l! Šthe€swab€that€he€obtained.€€The€victim€gave€a€description€of€one€ofŠ $X" Šher€attackers€to€Officer€Thomas€Michael€Presley,€a€criminalŠ ō$D # Šinvestigator€with€the€Knoxville€Police€Department.€€Based€on€theŠ ą%0!$ Šdescription€given€by€the€victim,€Officer€Presley€compiled€a€photoŠ Ģ&"% Šarray€and€showed€it€to€the€victim€on€August€7,€1992,€in€his€office.€Š ø'#& ŠThe€appellantššs€picture€was€one€of€six€shown€to€the€victim€at€thatŠ ¤(ō#' Štime.€€The€victim€identified€the€appellantššs€photograph€as€being€thatŠ )ą$( Šof€one€of€her€attackers.€€The€victim€told€Officer€Presley€that€theŠ |*Ģ%) Šappellantššs€photograph€looked€like€the€attacker€in€that€his€nose,€face,Š h+ø&* Šand€eyes€were€the€same.€€However,€she€said€that€her€attackerššs€hairŠ ° Šwas€shorter€than€that€in€the€picture€and€that€her€attacker€did€not€haveŠ œģ Ša€mustache.€€At€that€time€she€requested€to€hear€his€voice.ŠˆŲ` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą.€.€.€.Š`°` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ąą ø ąSubsequently,€the€appellant€was€placed€in€a€six€(6)€man€lineupŠ 8 ˆ Šand€the€victim€was€called€in€to€see€if€she€could€identify€her€attackerŠ $ t Šfrom€the€lineup.€€The€victim€requested€to€hear€each€man€speak€theŠ  ` Šwords€that€one€of€her€attackers€had€used€during€the€rape.€€TheŠ ü L  Šappellant€was€standing€in€the€number€three€position,€and€the€victimŠ č 8  Šidentified€him€as€being€one€of€the€men€who€raped€her€on€July€31,Š Ō$  Š1992.ŠĄ ` x` x ŠĢņņMichael€Eugene€Duffóó,€slip€op.€at€2„5.€€At€trial,€the€petitioner€presented€no€proof,€and€the€juryŠ ˜č  Šconvicted€him€of€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€one€count€of€aggravated€kidnapping,€Class€AŠ „Ō  Šfelonies.Š pĄ ŠĢą  ąAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€was€appointed€toŠ H˜ Šrepresent€the€petitioner.€€He€acknowledged€filing€a€motion€for€discovery€and€said€the€state€gave€himŠ 4„ Šthe€results€of€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigationššs€(FBI)€DNA€analysis€in€the€case.€€He€said€he€filedŠ  p Ša€notice€of€alibi€but€decided€not€to€pursue€the€defense€when€witnesses€could€not€establish€an€alibiŠ  \ Šfor€the€petitioner.€€He€said€he€talked€to€the€petitioner€about€the€inability€to€establish€an€alibi.€€He€saidŠ ųH Šthat€although€the€victim€tested€positive€for€chlamydia€after€the€rapes,€he€did€not€recall€talking€to€theŠ ä4 Špetitioner€about€having€him€tested€for€the€disease.Š Š  ŠĢą  ąThe€attorney€acknowledged€that€the€results€of€the€DNA€analysis€showed€that€the€DNA€fromŠ Øų Šthe€victimššs€vaginal€swabs€did€not€match€the€petitionerššs€DNA.€€He€said€he€had€planned€to€have€theŠ ”ä ŠFBIššs€DNA€serologist€testify€at€trial€about€the€results.€€He€said€that€before€trial,€he€talked€to€theŠ €Š Šserologist€on€the€telephone€and€that€the€serologist€sounded€š švery€pro€law€enforcement.šš€€He€said€theŠ l¼ Šserologist€indicated€that€the€lack€of€a€DNA€match€did€not€disprove€the€petitionerššs€involvement€inŠ X Ø Šthe€rapes€because€the€victim€had€stated€that€all€three€men€raped€her.€Š D!” ŠĢą  ąThe€attorney€testified€that€after€talking€with€the€FBI€serologist,€he€decided€not€to€call€him€asŠ #l! Ša€witness€and€to€introduce€the€DNA€results€into€evidence€through€the€testimony€of€a€KnoxvilleŠ $X" ŠPolice€Department€criminologist.€€He€said€that€in€a€pretrial€hearing,€the€state€argued€that€the€FBIššsŠ ō$D # ŠDNA€report€was€hearsay.€€He€said€the€trial€court€agreed€with€the€state€and€offered€to€continue€theŠ ą%0!$ Šcase€in€order€to€give€the€defense€time€to€arrange€for€the€FBI€serologist€to€testify.€€He€said€that€he€toldŠ Ģ&"% Šthe€petitioner€about€his€telephone€conversation€with€the€serologist€and€why€he€did€not€want€theŠ ø'#& Šserologist€to€testify.€€He€said€he€and€the€petitioner€decided€to€forgo€the€continuance€and€proceed€withŠ ¤(ō#' Štrial.€€He€said€he€decided€to€argue€that€the€state€did€not€have€any€DNA€evidence€linking€the€petitionerŠ )ą$( Što€the€crimes.Š |*Ģ%) ŠŠ h+ø&* Šą  ąThe€attorney€testified€that€he€did€not€remember€the€victim€testifying€that€the€petitioner€wasŠ ° Šthe€only€one€inside€of€her.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€had€serious€concerns€about€the€victimššsŠ œģ Šidentification€of€the€petitioner€because€the€victimššs€description€of€her€attacker€was€inconsistent€withŠ ˆŲ Šthe€petitionerššs€appearance€and€because€the€victim€had€to€hear€the€petitionerššs€voice€in€order€toŠ tÄ Šidentify€him.€€He€said€he€did€not€recall€whether€he€interviewed€witnesses€who€could€testify€about€theŠ `° Špetitionerššs€appearance€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€He€acknowledged€that€much€of€his€trial€strategyŠ L œ Šinvolved€cross„examining€the€victim€about€her€identification€of€the€petitioner.€€When€asked€why€heŠ 8 ˆ Šdid€not€call€any€witnesses€to€testify€about€the€petitionerššs€appearance,€he€said€he€was€afraid€theyŠ $ t Šwould€open€the€door€to€evidence€he€was€trying€to€keep€from€the€jury.€Š  ` ŠĢą  ąThe€attorney€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€actively€involved€in€the€case€and€that€theŠ č 8  Špetitioner€made€the€final€decisions€about€trial€strategy.€€He€said€that€he€advised€the€petitioner€not€toŠ Ō$  Štestify€and€that€the€petitioner€decided€not€to€take€the€stand.€€He€said€that€after€the€trial,€the€petitionerŠ Ą  Šregretted€not€testifying€and€not€calling€the€FBI€serologist€as€a€witness.Š ¬ü  ŠĢą  ąOn€cross„examination,€the€attorney€testified€that€he€had€been€practicing€law€since€1986€andŠ „Ō  Šthat€ninety„five€percent€of€his€law€practice€involved€criminal€defense€work.€€He€said€that€at€times,Š pĄ Šit€was€easy€to€get€along€with€the€petitioner€and€the€petitioner€was€likeable.€€He€said€the€petitioner€wasŠ \¬ Šnot€overbearing€and€would€listen€to€him.€€He€said€that€when€the€trial€court€offered€to€give€theŠ H˜ Špetitioner€a€continuance,€he€discussed€it€with€the€petitioner€and€that€the€petitioner€wanted€to€goŠ 4„ Šforward€with€the€trial.€€He€said€that€the€FBI€serologist€expressed€no€interest€in€helping€the€defenseŠ  p Šand€that€he€thought€the€serologist€would€do€anything€to€help€the€stateššs€case.€€He€acknowledgedŠ  \ Šbeing€afraid€the€serologist€would€tell€the€jury€that€the€lack€of€a€DNA€match€did€not€exculpate€theŠ ųH Špetitioner.€€He€said€that€after€the€trial€court€ruled€the€DNA€results€could€only€be€introduced€intoŠ ä4 Ševidence€through€the€FBI€serologist,€he€decided€to€argue€to€the€jury€that€the€state€did€not€have€DNAŠ Š  Ševidence€in€the€case.€€He€said€he€cross„examined€the€victim€extensively€about€her€identification€ofŠ ¼  Šthe€petitioner.€€He€said€he€also€cross„examined€Officer€Presley€about€how€the€police€got€the€victimŠ Øų Što€identify€the€petitioner€as€one€of€her€attackers.€€He€said€he€explained€to€the€jury€that€it€would€haveŠ ”ä Šbeen€difficult€for€all€three€men€to€have€raped€the€victim€in€the€short€amount€of€time€between€her€9„1„Š €Š Š1€telephone€call€and€the€arrival€of€the€first€police€officer€at€the€crime€scene.€€He€said€that€althoughŠ l¼ Šhe€prepared€the€petitionerššs€case,€the€petitioner€was€involved€in€every€part€of€the€defense.Š X Ø ŠĢą  ąLeslie€M.€Jeffress,€who€was€appointed€to€represent€the€petitioner€for€his€direct€appeal,Š 0"€  Štestified€that€he€spoke€with€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€about€the€case.€€He€said€that€although€heŠ #l! Šthought€the€victimššs€description€of€her€attackers€was€insufficient€to€identify€the€petitioner€as€one€ofŠ $X" Šthem,€he€found€no€problems€with€the€policeššs€identification€methods.€€On€cross„examination,€heŠ ō$D # Šacknowledged€that€he€had€always€known€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€to€be€dedicated,€conscientious,Š ą%0!$ Šand€prepared.Š Ģ&"% ŠĢą  ąMarilyn€Hamilton€testified€that€she€is€the€petitionerššs€aunt€and€used€to€style€his€hair.€€She€saidŠ ¤(ō#' Šthat€in€1992,€she€saw€the€petitioner€almost€every€day.€€€€She€said€that€before€and€after€the€crimes,€theŠ )ą$( Špetitioner€had€a€mustache€and€the€hair€on€the€top€of€the€his€head€was€four€or€five€inches€long€andŠ |*Ģ%) Šcurly.€€She€said€the€petitioner€always€had€a€boxed€haircut€that€was€tapered€on€the€sides.€€She€said€theŠ h+ø&* Špetitionerššs€trial€attorney€asked€her€to€prepare€evidence€regarding€the€petitionerššs€appearance€beforeŠ ° Šand€after€the€offenses.€€She€said€she€brought€several€photographs€of€the€petitioner€to€trial€and€plannedŠ œģ Što€testify€about€his€appearance.€€She€said€that€during€the€trial,€she€had€to€wait€outside€the€courtroom.€Š ˆŲ ŠShe€said€that€at€some€point,€she€looked€through€the€glass€in€the€courtroom€doors€and€saw€theŠ tÄ Špetitionerššs€trial€attorney€giving€a€closing€statement.€€She€said€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€came€outŠ `° Šof€the€courtroom€and€told€her€that€she€did€not€need€to€testify.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€HamiltonŠ L œ Šstated€that€she€did€not€know€what€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€said€during€trial€because€she€was€notŠ 8 ˆ Šin€the€courtroom.€€She€also€said€she€did€not€know€where€the€petitioner€was€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.Š $ t ŠĢą  ąThe€petitioner€testified€that€the€FBIššs€DNA€report€was€the€best€evidence€for€his€case€and€thatŠ ü L  Šhe€told€his€attorney€to€use€it€in€his€defense.€€He€said€that€after€the€jury€had€been€selected,€he€keptŠ č 8  Šasking€his€attorney€if€the€jury€was€going€to€hear€about€the€DNA€evidence.€€He€said€his€attorney€toldŠ Ō$  Šhim,€š šSure,€sure.šš€€He€stated€that€later,€his€attorney€said€he€forgot€to€subpoena€the€FBI€serologist€toŠ Ą  Štrial€and€asked€the€petitioner€if€the€petitioner€wanted€a€continuance.€€He€said€that€although€hisŠ ¬ü  Šattorney€thought€the€serologist€was€going€to€lie€for€the€state,€he€told€his€attorney€to€continue€the€trialŠ ˜č  Šanyway.€€He€said€his€attorney€assured€him€the€jury€would€hear€about€the€DNA€results€without€theŠ „Ō  Šserologistššs€testimony.€€He€said€that€after€the€victim€testified€the€petitioner€was€the€man€who€wasŠ pĄ Šinside€of€her€the€entire€time,€he€talked€to€his€trial€attorney€again€about€having€the€serologist€testify.€Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€gave€his€attorney€the€names€of€four€witnesses€who€couldŠ 4„ Šestablish€an€alibi€defense€but€that€his€attorney€only€talked€to€one€of€the€witnesses€and€did€not€call€anyŠ  p Šof€them€to€testify.€€He€said€he€also€gave€his€attorney€the€names€of€witnesses€who€could€testify€aboutŠ  \ Šhis€appearance€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.€€He€said€his€attorney€did€not€want€any€of€the€witnesses€toŠ ųH Štestify€because€his€attorney€thought€the€state€would€use€them€against€the€petitioner.€€Finally,€he€saidŠ ä4 Šthat€he€gave€his€attorney€the€names€of€people€who€could€testify€about€the€victimššs€truthfulness€butŠ Š  Šthat€his€attorney€never€talked€about€calling€them€as€witnesses.€€He€said€his€attorney€led€him€to€believeŠ ¼  Šthat€witnesses€were€going€to€testify€in€his€defense.€€He€said€he€did€not€learn€until€the€last€minute€thatŠ Øų Šhis€witnesses€were€not€going€to€testify.€€He€said€that€if€he€had€known€earlier€that€his€attorney€was€notŠ ”ä Šgoing€to€call€any€witnesses,€he€would€have€contested€it.Š €Š ŠĢą  ąOn€cross„examination,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€having€five€prior€convictions,€includingŠ X Ø Šconvictions€for€robbery,€forgery,€and€theft.€€He€acknowledged€that€his€attorney€went€to€great€lengthsŠ D!” Što€ensure€that€he€understood€his€right€to€testify.€€He€said€that€although€he€learned€during€the€pretrialŠ 0"€  Šsuppression€hearing€that€the€defense€would€not€be€able€to€introduce€the€DNA€report€into€evidenceŠ #l! Šwithout€the€FBI€serologist,€his€attorney€assured€him€the€jury€would€hear€the€evidence.€€He€said€heŠ $X" Šwas€unaware€that€his€wife€and€sister€had€given€the€police€two€different€alibis€for€him.€€Š ō$D # ŠĢą  ąThe€trial€court€denied€the€petitionerššs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€foundŠ Ģ&"% Šthat€although€it€offered€to€grant€the€petitioner€a€continuance€in€order€to€give€him€time€to€subpoenaŠ ø'#& Šthe€FBI€serologist,€the€petitioner€decided€to€forgo€a€continuance€and€proceed€with€trial.€€The€trialŠ ¤(ō#' Šcourt€found€that€the€petitioner€understood€the€FBI€serologist€would€not€testify.€€As€to€the€trialŠ )ą$( Šattorneyššs€failure€to€call€witnesses€to€testify€about€the€petitionerššs€appearance€at€the€time€of€theŠ |*Ģ%) Šcrimes,€the€trial€court€stated€that€this€issue€was€š šone€of€the€more€difficult€issues€faced€by€the€court.šš€Š h+ø&* ŠNevertheless,€it€found€that€the€attorneyššs€failure€to€call€the€witnesses€was€a€strategic€trial€decisionŠ ° Šthat€was€made€due€to€the€attorneyššs€concern€that€the€witnesses€would€open€doors€to€evidence€he€wasŠ œģ Štrying€to€keep€from€the€jury.€€The€trial€court€also€stated€that€the€attorney€discussed€the€issue€with€theŠ ˆŲ Špetitioner€and€that€the€decision€not€to€call€the€witnesses€was€made€with€the€petitioner€š šas€opposedŠ tÄ Što€willful€failure€to€follow€through€with€the€issue.ššŠ `° ŠĢą  ąUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made,€theŠ 8 ˆ Šburden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselššs€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€theŠ $ t Šdeficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€of€rendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trialŠ  ` Šwas€unreliable€or€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€ņņStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Š ü L  Š687,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€ņņseeóó€ņņLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Š č 8  Š842„44€(1993).€€The€ņņStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied€to€the€right€to€counsel€under€Article€I,Š Ō$  ŠSection€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ņņState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989).€Š Ą  ŠĢą  ąIn€ņņBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€court€decided€thatŠ ˜č  Šattorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€services€rendered€were€within€theŠ „Ō  Šrange€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€rangeŠ pĄ Šof€competence€was€to€be€measured€by€the€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€ņņBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,Š \¬ Š491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.€1974),€and€ņņUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202-04€(D.C.€Cir.Š H˜ Š1973).€€Also,€in€reviewing€counselššs€conduct,€a€š šfair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresŠ 4„ Šthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€theŠ  p Šcircumstances€of€counselššs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselššsŠ  \ Šperspective€at€the€time.šš€€ņņStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€ņņseeóó€ņņHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629Š ųH ŠS.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€theŠ ä4 Šdefense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategyŠ Š  Šor€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņHellardóó,€629Š ¼  ŠS.W.2d€at€9;€ņņDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€at€1201.€š šHowever,€if€the€record€shows€the€action€of€trial€counsel,Š Øų Šin€the€circumstances€shown,€has€no€rational€or€logical€basis,€then€the€legitimacy€of€the€tacticsŠ ”ä Šemployed€must€be€scrutinized€under€the€requirement€of€ņņBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.Š €Š Š1975).šš€€ņņState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).Š l¼ ŠĢą  ąIn€a€post-conviction€case,€the€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincingŠ D!” Ševidence€his€grounds€for€relief.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€40-30-210(f).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€theŠ 0"€  Štrial€courtššs€findings€of€fact€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€againstŠ #l! Šthose€findings.€€ņņFields€v.€Stateóó,€40€S.W.3d€450,€456€(Tenn.€2001).€€We€review€the€trial€courtššsŠ $X" Šconclusions€as€to€whether€counselššs€performance€was€deficient€and€whether€that€deficiency€wasŠ ō$D # Šprejudicial€under€a€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€standard€with€no€presumption€of€Ō_Ōcorrectness.Ō_Ō€€ņņId.óó€at€457.Š ą%0!$ ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņI.€€FBI€SEROLOGISTŠ ø'#& ŠĢÓ  Óą  ąó óThe€petitioner€claims€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€his€trialŠ )ą$( Šattorney€failed€to€have€the€FBI€serologist€testify€that€the€DNA€from€the€victimššs€vaginal€swabs€didŠ |*Ģ%) Šnot€match€his€DNA.€€He€claims€that€this€evidence€became€even€more€important€to€his€defense€whenŠ h+ø&* Šthe€victim€testified€on€cross„examination,€š šMichael€Duff€was€the€one€that€was€on€top€of€me,€and€wasŠ ° Šinside€of€me€the€whole€time.šš€€He€claims€that€after€hearing€this€statement,€his€attorney€should€haveŠ œģ Šasked€for€a€continuance€in€order€to€get€a€DNA€expert€to€testify.€€The€state€contends€that€theŠ ˆŲ Špetitionerššs€attorney€made€a€tactical€decision€not€to€call€the€serologist€to€testify€and€that€the€decisionŠ tÄ Šwas€understandable€given€that€the€serologist€was€going€to€downplay€the€DNA€results.€€As€to€theŠ `° Špetitionerššs€claim€that€the€serologistššs€testimony€became€even€more€important€once€the€victimŠ L œ Štestified€that€the€petitioner€was€inside€of€her€the€entire€time,€the€state€contends€that€this€does€notŠ 8 ˆ Šsupport€the€petitionerššs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€the€victim€repeatedlyŠ $ t Štestified€that€more€than€one€man€raped€her.€€We€believe€that€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€thatŠ  ` Šhe€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Š ü L  ŠĢą  ąBefore€trial,€the€state€filed€a€motion€asking€the€trial€court€to€prohibit€the€defense€from€makingŠ Ō$  Šreferences€to€the€scientific€evidence.€€In€a€pretrial€hearing,€the€state€explained€to€the€trial€court€thatŠ Ą  Šthe€defense€planned€to€question€a€Knoxville€Police€Department€criminologist€about€the€DNA€resultsŠ ¬ü  Šand€that€such€testimony€was€hearsay.€€The€following€exchange€then€occurred:Š ˜č  ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą[Defense€Attorney]:€Judge,€as€a€general€rule,€the€Stateššs€test€isŠ pĄ Šexculpatory.€€Generally,€getting€the€FBI€down€here€for€the€defenseŠ \¬ Štakes€about€an€act€of€congress,€but€if€I€need€to€get€them€down€here,€IŠ H˜ Šwill€get€them€down€here,€and€I€will€ask€for€a€continuance,€based€onŠ 4„ Šthe€State€not€giving€me€ten€days€notice€on€enhancement.€€I€think€I€amŠ  p Šentitled€to€that€under€the€rules.Š \` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą[State]:€Judge,€he€has€had€a€year€to€get€them€down€here.€€He€knewŠ ä4 Šwho€conducted€this€test.ŠŠ ` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą.€.€.€.ŠØų` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ąTHE€COURT:€You€better€talk€to€Mr.€Duff€about€this,€please.€€TellŠ €Š ŠMr.€Duff€the€consequences€of€your€motionš!šŠl¼` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą[Defense€Attorney]:€Sufficiently,€Judge,€I€would€submit€that€I€canŠ D!” Šargue€that€they€have€no€scientific€proof€without€putting€any€proof€onŠ 0"€  Šthat€they€donššt.Š#l!` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą[State]:€Correct.€€We€have€no€problem€with€that.€€No€problem€withŠ ō$D # Šthat.Šą%0!$` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą.€.€.€.Šø'#&` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ąTHE€COURT:€Are€you€asking€for€a€continuance€or€not?А)ą$(` x` x Šā āŠ |*Ģ%) Šą8  ąą8` Š Š ą[Defense€Attorney]:€Let€me€talk€with€Mr.€Duff.€€If€I€need€to€get€theŠ ° Šā āFBI€down€here.Šœģ` x` x ŠĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ąTHE€COURT:€Letššs€get€this€issue,€and€you€talk€to€Mr.€Duff€on€it,€andŠ tÄ Šsee€what€he€says.Š`°` x` x ŠĢÓÓAfter€a€recess,€the€following€exchange€occurred:Š 8 ˆ Šą8  ąą8` Š Š ąÓÓTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Please€be€seated.€€With€regard€to,€ah,€to€theŠ  ` Šissue€regarding€scientific€testing,€ah,€I€think€that€we€have€kind€ofŠ ü L  Šagreed,€in€the€discussions€that€have€gone€back€and€forth€between€Mr.Š č 8  ŠDuff€and€[his€attorney],€and€the€Attorney€General,€and€myself,€thatŠ Ō$  Š[his€attorney]€may€ask€questions€about€what€a€particular€individualŠ Ą  Šdid,€such€as€the€officer.€€If€he€wishes€to€seek€scientific€testing€andŠ ¬ü  Ševidence,€I€would€allow€him€to€have€a€fairly€short€continuance€to€doŠ ˜č  Šthat.€€At€this€point€you€want€to€proceed?Š„Ō ` x` x ŠÓ%sÓÓÓĢą8  ąą8` Š Š ą[Defense€Attorney]:€No,€Your€Honor,€assuming€that€we€are,€as€youŠ \¬ Šhave€ruled,€that€we€can€ask€an€officer€what€that€officer€done,€or€whatŠ H˜ Šany€other€individual,€himself,€done€personally,€we€are€prepared€to€goŠ 4„ Šforward€today.€€And€we€would€agree,€that€anything€else,€asking€whatŠ  p Ša€particular€results€were,€or€what€someone€else€done,€would€beŠ  \ Šinadmissible.ŠųH` x` x ŠĢŌ_ŌŌ_Ōą  ąIn€light€of€the€transcript€of€the€pretrial€hearing€and€the€testimony€at€the€post„convictionŠ Š  Šhearing,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtššs€finding€that€the€petitionerŠ ¼  Šreceived€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€During€the€pretrial€hearing,€the€trial€court€asked€if€theŠ Øų Špetitioner€wanted€a€continuance,€and€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€stated€that€he€wanted€to€discussŠ ”ä Ša€continuance€with€the€petitioner.€€After€a€recess,€the€attorney€told€the€trial€court€that€š šwe€areŠ €Š Šprepared€to€go€forward€today.šš€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitionerššs€attorney€testified€thatŠ l¼ Šwhen€he€explained€the€continuance€to€the€petitioner,€the€petitioner€told€him€that€he€wanted€to€goŠ X Ø Šforward€with€the€trial.€€In€addition,€the€petitioner€acknowledged€discussing€a€continuance€with€hisŠ D!” Šattorney€and€knowing€the€serologist€would€not€testify.€€The€trial€court€obviously€accredited€the€trialŠ 0"€  Šattorneyššs€testimony€that€the€petitioner€made€the€decision€to€decline€the€trial€courtššs€offer€for€aŠ #l! Šcontinuance€and€proceed€with€trial.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€he€received€theŠ $X" Šineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Š ō$D # ŠĢą  ąWe€note€that€although€the€petitioner€claims€the€FBI€serologistššs€testimony€became€even€moreŠ Ģ&"% Šimportant€to€his€case€after€the€victim€testified€on€cross„examination€that€he€was€the€only€man€whoŠ ø'#& Špenetrated€her,€our€review€of€the€trial€transcript€reveals€that€the€victim€testified€on€direct€examinationŠ ¤(ō#' Šthat€in€addition€to€the€petitioner,€at€least€one€of€the€other€three€men€inserted€his€penis€into€her€vagina.€Š )ą$( ŠThus,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€victimššs€statement€necessarily€contradicts€the€trial€courtššs€findingŠ |*Ģ%) Šthat€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.Š h+ø&* ŠÓ  Óņ ņĢII.€€WITNESSESó ó€ņ ņTOó ó€ņ ņPETITIONERššS€APPEARANCEó óŠ œģ ŠĢÓ  Óą  ąNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€becauseŠ xČ Šhis€trial€attorney€failed€to€have€witnesses€testify€about€his€appearance€immediately€before€and€afterŠ d“ Šthe€crimes€in€order€to€challenge€the€victimššs€identification€of€him€as€one€of€her€attackers.€€The€stateŠ P   Šclaims€the€attorneyššs€decision€not€to€call€the€witnesses€was€a€legitimate€trial€strategy€that€should€notŠ < Œ Šbe€second„guessed€by€this€court.€€We€conclude€that€we€are€unable€to€determine€from€the€trial€courtššsŠ ( x Šfindings€whether€the€petitioner€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€remand€the€caseŠ  d Što€the€trial€court.Š  P  ŠĢą  ąInitially,€we€note€that€the€state€presented€no€scientific€evidence€linking€the€petitioner€to€theŠ Ų(  Šcrimes€and€that€the€petitionerššs€convictions€depended€on€the€victimššs€identification€of€him.€€As€notedŠ Ä  Šby€this€court€in€the€petitionerššs€appeal€of€his€convictions,€when€the€victim€identified€the€petitionerššsŠ °  Šphotograph€from€a€photograph€array,€she€noted€several€differences€in€his€appearance€and€herŠ œģ  Šattackerššs€appearance.€€Specifically,€she€stated€that€her€attackerššs€hair€was€shorter€than€theŠ ˆŲ  Špetitionerššs€hair€and€that€her€attacker€did€not€have€a€mustache.€€It€was€only€after€she€was€able€to€hearŠ tÄ Šthe€petitionerššs€voice€that€she€became€certain€he€was€one€of€the€men€who€raped€her.€€Š `° ŠĢą  ąAt€trial,€Officer€Presley€testified€that€the€petitionerššs€photograph,€which€the€victim€identifiedŠ 8ˆ Šfrom€a€photograph€array€on€August€7,€1992,€was€taken€in€January€1992,€six€months€before€theŠ $t Šcrimes.€€He€also€stated€that€in€the€photograph,€the€petitioner€had€a€mustache€and€that€the€mustacheŠ ` Šwas€similar€to€the€one€the€petitioner€had€at€trial.€€The€police€brought€the€petitioner€to€the€policeŠ üL Šstation€for€the€physical€lineup€on€August€25,€1992,€nearly€a€month€after€the€crimes.€€Officer€Presley,Š č8 Šwho€was€present€at€both€lineups,€testified€that€the€petitionerššs€hair€on€August€25€was€shorter€than€itŠ Ō$ Šhad€been€in€the€January€1992€photograph.€€There€was€no€testimony€concerning€whether€the€petitionerŠ Ą Šhad€a€mustache€when€he€participated€in€the€physical€lineup€on€August€25.€€Obviously,€theŠ ¬ü Špetitionerššs€appearance€at€the€time€of€the€crimes€was€a€crucial€issue€in€the€case.€€Š ˜č ŠĢą  ąAs€previously€mentioned,€when€analyzing€this€issue€in€its€order€denying€post„convictionŠ pĄ Šrelief,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€trial€attorney€discussed€not€calling€the€witnesses€with€theŠ \ ¬ Špetitioner€and€that€the€two€of€them€made€the€decision€not€to€have€the€witnesses€testify.€€We€believeŠ H!˜ Šthe€evidence€preponderates€against€this€finding.€When€asked€if€he€interviewed€any€witnesses€whoŠ 4"„  Šcould€testify€at€trial€about€the€petitionerššs€appearance,€the€petitionerššs€attorney€did€not€recall€talkingŠ  #p! Što€any€witnesses.€€Furthermore,€when€asked€why€he€did€not€call€any€of€the€witnesses€to€testify,€theŠ  $\" Šattorney€stated€that€ņņheóó€was€afraid€the€witnesses€would€open€the€door€to€evidence€he€was€trying€toŠ ų$H # Škeep€from€the€jury.€€Although€the€attorney€testified€generally€that€the€petitioner€made€the€finalŠ ä%4!$ Šdecisions€about€trial€strategy,€he€did€not€testify€that€he€had€discussed€this€specific€issue€with€theŠ Š& "% Špetitioner€or€that€he€and€the€petitioner€decided€not€to€call€any€witnesses.€€To€the€contrary,€theŠ ¼' #& Špetitioner€testified€that€he€did€not€learn€until€the€last€minute€that€his€attorney€was€not€going€to€callŠ Ø(ų#' Šany€witnesses.€€Ms.€Hamiltonššs€testimony€that€the€attorney€asked€her€to€testify€about€the€petitionerššsŠ ”)ä$( Šā āappearance€at€the€time€of€the€crimes,€that€she€brought€photographs€of€the€petitioner€with€her€to€theŠ €*Š%) Štrial,€and€that€she€had€to€wait€outside€the€courtroom€during€the€trial,€would€support€the€petitionerššsŠ ° Štestimony.Š œģ Šā āĢą  ąWe€see€no€rational€basis€for€the€attorneyššs€decision€not€to€call€witnesses€to€testify€about€theŠ tÄ Špetitionerššs€appearance€at€the€time€of€the€crimes.€Although€the€petitionerššs€attorney€testified€that€heŠ `° Šwas€afraid€the€witnesses€would€open€doors€to€evidence€that€he€was€trying€to€keep€from€the€jury,€weŠ L œ Šbelieve€that€with€adequate€preparation,€the€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€could€have€easily€elicitedŠ 8 ˆ Štestimony€about€the€petitionerššs€appearance€without€revealing€prejudicial€information.€€We€concludeŠ $ t Šthat€the€trial€attorneyššs€decision€was€not€a€legitimate€trial€tactic.Š  ` ŠĢą  ąUnfortunately,€we€are€unable€to€assess€the€prejudicial€impact€of€counselššs€decision€becauseŠ č 8  Šthe€trial€court€gave€no€indication€as€to€the€credibility,€or€lack€thereof,€of€Ms.€Hamilton.€€AlthoughŠ Ō$  Šnothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€her€testimony€was€discredited,€we€cannot€infer€a€credibilityŠ Ą  Šdetermination€from€the€trial€courtššs€comment€about€its€having€difficulty€with€the€issue.€€We€do€note,Š ¬ü  Šthough,€that€if€we€accredit€Ms.€Hamiltonššs€testimony,€we€believe€that€the€defenseššs€failure€to€call€herŠ ˜č  Šor€any€other€witnesses€to€testify€about€his€appearance€immediately€before€and€after€the€crimes€wouldŠ „Ō  Šundermine€our€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Š pĄ ŠŌ_ŌŌ_ŌĢą  ąGiven€the€lack€of€sufficient€findings,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtššs€order€and€remand€the€caseŠ H˜ Što€the€trial€court€in€order€for€it€to€make€sufficient€findings€of€fact€relative€to€the€credibility€of€Ms.Š 4„ ŠHamilton.€€The€trial€courtššs€findings€should€guide€its€decision€regarding€prejudice€toward€theŠ  p Špetitioner.Š  \ ŠĢ€ĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š ¼  Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE