Jason Tibbs v. JOHN GALIPEAU, Warden

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued April 23, 2024
Decided April 29, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2300
JASON TIBBS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOHN GALIPEAU, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division.
No. 1:20-cv-01564-JMS-MJD
Jane Magnus-Stinson,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jason Tibbs contends in this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §2254 that his counsel
furnished ineffective assistance during his trial for murder. The district court denied the
petition in a thorough opinion, concluding that, even if the attorneys’ performance was
deficient, Tibbs has not established a reasonable probability of prejudice. 2023 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 95295 (S.D. Ind. June 1, 2023).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2300 Page 2
Tibbs accuses his lawyers of making two errors: not getting into evidence a fiber
analysis performed by the FBI in 1998, and not introducing the transcript of a statement
that witness Eric Freeman made during 2013. We doubt that these matters, individually
or in combination, could show deficient performance. Under Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 691–96 (1984), a court must consider the totality of a lawyer’s efforts rather
than focus on isolated errors. See also, e.g., Myers v. Neal, 975 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2020),
and Williams v. Lemmon, 557 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2009). Tibbs has not attempted to analyze
the totality of his lawyers’ work before and during the trial, so he lacks a prima facie
showing of ineffectiveness. As far as we can see, counsel put up a vigorous defense.
Even the isolated claims of error are weak. By the time of Tibbs’s trial, the FBI
was refusing to stand behind its fiber analysis, believing it unscientific. A tenacious ef-
fort by counsel would not have succeeded in getting it into evidence. And the transcript
of Freeman’s statement, which is inconsistent with Freeman’s testimony at trial, also
was not going to come into evidence. It might have been used for impeachment, but
there was no way to introduce it if, as he did, Freeman conceded the inconsistency.
The district judge bypassed these matters, observing that the fiber analysis, if in
evidence, would have shown only that Rayna Rison, the murdered woman, had been in
a car that everyone agrees she was in frequently. As for the prior statement: Since Free-
man had made many inconsistent statements, and admitted lying to the police, the 2013
transcript could not have mattered much to the jury.
The district judge elaborated on these and other matters. It is unnecessary to add
more to its analysis.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --