Full opinion text
BYBEE, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to interpret and apply the standard of review mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), and to determine the meaning of the phrase “adjudicated on the merits,” which acts as a prerequisite to AEDPA review. In Washington state court, on December 10, 1997, fifteen-year-old Donald Eugene Lambert pled guilty to aggravated first-degree murder, an offense which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Shortly thereafter, Lambert filed a Personal Restraint Petition in the Washington Court of Appeals attacking his plea on the grounds that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. After unsuccessfully arguing his claims both in the Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court, Lambert petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington for a writ of habeas corpus. In his habeas petition, Lambert reasserted his claim of ineffective assistance supported by three primary allegations: (1) his attorney, Guillermo Romero, stipulated to the juvenile court’s declination of jurisdiction and transfer to adult court; (2) Romero failed to fully advise him of the penalty he would face if he pled guilty, failed to advise him that he should not plead guilty because he would receive the same sentence if he were convicted after a trial, and failed to investigate certain impeachment evidence; and (3) Romero labored under an actual conflict of interest created by his association with an indigent defense firm that was also representing Lambert’s co-defendant. Lambert also reasserted the allegation that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware that the sentence set forth in his plea agreement— life in prison without the possibility of parole — truly meant that he would never be released. The district court granted relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding persuasive Lambert’s second allegation, that Romero failed to investigate the government’s case and advise Lambert prior to the entry of his plea. The district court 17318 also concluded that Lambert was entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware of the punishment he would face. The state of Washington, through Warden James Blodgett, appeals the grounds on which the district court granted relief, and Lambert cross-appeals the issues on which he was denied relief. Because we conclude that the district court erroneously disregarded the Washington state courts’ factual findings and conclusions of law, we reverse the district court’s decision granting habeas relief on the ground that Lambert was denied the effective assistance of counsel and his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. We otherwise affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts In the early morning hours of May 21, 1997, 89-year-old Homer Smithson and his elderly wife, Vada Smithson, were abruptly awakened by two armed teenage intruders who entered the bedroom of their rural home in Grant County, Washington, shouting expletives. As the teens repeatedly and fatally shot Homer in the couple’s bed, Vada — in an effort to telephone her son for help — ran into the kitchen. The two teens ran outside to reload their firearms with ammunition they had stolen from a shed on the Smithsons’ property. Entering the house a second time, the teens concentrated their fire on Mrs. Smithson. After emptying their weapons again, the teens exited the house to reload once more. Through the kitchen window, one of the teens noticed Vada Smithson on the telephone and heard her exclaim, “they’re killing me, they’re killing me!” Believing she was calling the police, the teen shot her multiple times, firing six or seven rounds until the gun was empty. Police detectives from the Grant County Sheriffs Office responded to the scene. They found Homer Smithson in bed, still alive but semi-conscious, thrashing around. He died at the Sacred Heart Hospital in Spokane, Washington shortly thereafter, having sustained multiple gunshot wounds to the head, chest, legs and abdomen. Vada Smithson was found dead in her kitchen, holding the handset of a telephone. She appeared to have been shot multiple times, and lost large quantities of blood. According to detectives, the house had not been ransacked, but numerous .22 cartridge casings were found at the scene. Investigation later that day led police to the home of Marcus Wawers, where they found the murder weapons. Police questioned 15-year-old Melanie Hinkle, who was then residing at the Wawers’s residence. Hinkle disclosed a plan to rob and kill the Smithsons that she and three other teens, including Wawers, age 15, Adam Betancourt, age 16, and 15-year-old Donald Eugene Lambert, had devised over the course of two weeks. Hinkle said that the plan on the evening of May 20 was for Lambert, Wawers and Betancourt to shoot Homer Smithson and then hold a gun to Mrs. Smithson’s head, forcing her to tell them where the valuables were in the house. After she had done so, they planned to shoot Mrs. Smithson as well. Hinkle said that she had intended to accompany the boys that evening, but was unable to after she injured her leg. In her sworn statement she reported that, in connection with the plan to rob the Smithsons, Lambert had expressed the possibility that Mr. and Mrs. Smithson might both be killed, stating, “whatever happens, happens.” The Grant County Sheriffs Office interviewed Lambert regarding his whereabouts on the evening of the murders. After waiving his Miranda rights, Lambert initially denied any involvement in the murders, claiming to have been at Waw-ers’s home the entire evening. He did acknowledge knowing Homer Smithson, reporting that he used to live on the Smithsons’ sod farm. Later in the interview, however, Lambert confessed his involvement in the crimes. He stated that he, Wawers and Betancourt went to the Smithsons’ home that evening to rob them. The three proceeded first to the Smithsons’ shed, stealing approximately 35 rounds of ammunition. Lambert initially carried a nine shot .22 revolver, Betancourt carried a single shot rifle, and Wawers planned to stand watch over the robbery with a pellet gun. Betancourt and Lambert subsequently traded guns, and the two entered the Smithsons’ home. After hearing Mr. Smithson coughing, Lambert and Betanc-ourt followed the sound to the bedroom and opened fire. Once they had depleted their ammunition, the two ran outside, traded weapons again, and reloaded. After entering, firing and exiting a second time, Lambert, overhearing Vada Smithson’s panicked phone call, then shot six or seven bullets at her through the kitchen window. According to Lambert, Betanc-ourt then joined in, shooting her in the head. Following the shootings, the three boys ran from the Smithsons’ property back toward Wawers’s residence. According to Lambert, before reaching the home, Betancourt recalled leaving his flashlight in the Smithsons’ shed, and he returned to the scene to retrieve it. Betancourt later reported to Lambert that, upon his return, he found Vada Smithson still alive, and he stabbed her with his knife. In retrospect, Lambert recalled thinking that the plan was “all a game, like we were just gonna jack whatever, rob whatever and then leave.” On May 22, 1997, Lambert was arraigned in juvenile court in Grant County on two counts of aggravated first-degree murder for the deaths of Homer and Vada Smithson. The Grant County Superior Court appointed attorney Guillermo Romero to represent Lambert. Romero was associated with The Defenders, an indigent defense firm which contracted with Grant County to provide legal services. Thomas Earl, another attorney associated with The Defenders, was appointed to represent Be-tancourt. Hinkle was represented by yet another attorney associated with The Defenders, while Wawers retained private counsel. All four youths were charged with two counts of aggravated first-degree murder. Sixteen-year-old Betancourt was directly charged in Superior Court. He subsequently pled guilty to two counts of non-aggravated first-degree murder and agreed to testify in hearings pertaining to Lambert, Hinkle and Wawers. The other three defendants, Lambert (15), Wawers (15), and Hinkle (15), were initially charged in juvenile court, but the State immediately petitioned the juvenile court to decline jurisdiction and transfer the case to Superior Court. In preparation for the hearing on this motion, Romero retained Dr. Mark Mays, a psychologist and attorney, to conduct a psychological evaluation of Lambert. Dr. Mays’s report concluded that Lambert was extremely dangerous and had no mental problems. Through his attorney, Lambert stipulated to the transfer of his case from juvenile to adult court, conceding that no mitigating factors favored retaining juvenile jurisdiction. The juvenile court declined jurisdiction and transferred Lambert’s case to adult court on July 22,1997. That same day, Lambert was charged as an adult on two counts of aggravated first-degree murder in Grant County Superior Court. Lambert entered a plea of not guilty. In preparation for trial, Lambert submitted to an interview with the Washington Department of Social and Health Services for the purpose of assessing his competency to stand trial, his capacity at the time of the alleged offense, and his dangerousness. During this interview, Lambert stated, “[I]t’s not right to go and kill somebody but I can’t take it back. I guess I should go to prison, take classes, work to be a better person when I get out.” His interviewers concluded that Lambert was “well acquainted with the justice system, and [ ] knowledgeable about legal proceedings,” even demonstrating a “moderate level of sophistication about the legal system.” Lambert was deemed competent to stand trial, free of any serious mental illness or defect, and highly dangerous. Lambert authored several key notes before, during, and after his trial. Prior to his trial, on October 14, 1997, Lambert wrote to John Knodell, the prosecuting attorney assigned to his case. In the note Lambert stated, “if I lose my trial I face life in prison without parole.” He continued,”[T]o me I would rather prefer the death penelty [sic] and just get everything out of the way instead of sitting and rotting in a cell just waiting to die anyway.” On the first day of his criminal trial, immediately following opening statements, Lambert authored another note, this time addressed to his court-appointed attorney, Romero. The text of the note indicated a strong personal desire to. plead guilty to, and take responsibility for, Mrs. Smithson’s murder, but an ambiguous reference in the margin suggested that Lambert might have harbored some confusion as to the punishment which would attach to his plea. After receiving the note, Romero asked for and was granted a recess, lasting somewhere between five and twenty minutes. During this time, in the presence of a Grant County security officer, Lambert discussed his desire to change his plea with Romero. After talking with Lambert, Romero informed prosecutor Knodell of his client’s decision. Knodell agreed to dismiss the aggravated first-degree murder charge for the death of Homer Smithson, and amend the Information to charge Lambert with one count of aggravated first-degree murder for the death of Vada Smithson. The court then proceeded to a hearing in which Lambert pled guilty to the aggravated first-degree murder of Vada Smithson. The trial judge thoroughly questioned Lambert as to whether he was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty, seeking to verify, as well, that he understood the punishment for his crime. Because adjudication of the constitutional claims that Lambert raised after the entry of his guilty plea calls for a highly contextual and fact-dependent analysis, we reproduce, in full, the heart of the plea colloquy: The Court: Mr. Lambert; is your mind clear? Lambert: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: At this moment are you under the influence of alcohol, drugs or prescription medicine? Lambert: No, Your Honor. The Court: Mr. Lambert, do you understand that by an amendment to the Information against you, you are now charged with Aggravated Murder in the First Degree of Veda [sic] Smithson? Lambert: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: Mr. Lambert, the punishment imposed by law for that offense, whether a person is convicted after a trial or pleads guilty, is a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Lambert: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: Understand that? Lambert: Yes, sir. Lambert signed the Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to a Felony, which included provisions plainly setting forth the elements of the crime to which he had pled and the sentence. Section 6(a) of the Statement provided, “The crime with which I am charged carries a maximum sentence, a fine, and a STANDARD SENTENCING RANGE as follows: Count No. 1 ... Life imprisonment without possibility of parole.” The Statement concluded with the declaration, “My lawyer has explained to me, and we have fully discussed, all of the above paragraphs. I understand them all. I have been given a copy of ‘Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty.’ I have no further questions to ask of the judge.” The court questioned Lambert to ascertain whether he understood the document: The Court: Mr. Lambert, I have in hand here a document called Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to a felony. Did you sign this document here today? Lambert: Yes, Your Honor, and I dated it. The Court: Before you signed it did you read the document carefully? Lambert: Yes, Your Honor and discussed it with my lawyer. The Court: Did you have a full opportunity to discuss the amended charge and your plea and the matters regarding the sentence with Mr. Romero? Lambert: Yes, Your Honor. The trial court emphasized that Lambert stood to gain no advantage by pleading guilty, stating that “the punishment imposed by law for [aggravated first-degree murder], whether a person is convicted after a trial or pleads guilty, is a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole.” Lambert said that he understood. The court questioned Lambert at length to ensure that he comprehended the consequences of pleading guilty: The Court: Do you understand, Mr. Lambert, that by pleading guilty you’re giving up certain valuable constitutional rights? Lambert: Yes, Your Honor. I went over that with my lawyer too. The Court: Good, I’m glad you did, and we’ll go over it here for the record and then when we finish that, if you need any more time to talk with your lawyer or have any questions for me, we’ll have a chance for that too. Perhaps, most significantly, by pleading guilty you’re giving up the right to have a trial, which we’ve already begun here. Now, do you understand that? Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: In other words, to say it as simply as possible, if you plead guilty the trial will end and the next thing that will happen will be sentencing. Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: All right. You also give up the right to appeal to a higher court after a trial. Do you understand that? Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: If we completed the trial, Mr. Lambert, or continued with it, you would have the right to hear and to see anyone who gave evidence against you, you would have the right to require witnesses to appear and testify on your behalf, you would have the right to testify yourself or not as you saw fit, and you would be convicted of an offense only if the jury unanimously found that you were guilty based on the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that? Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: Mr. Lambert, before I call upon you to state your plea, do you want any more time to consult with your lawyer? Lambert: No, sir. The Court: Do you have any questions for me? Lambert: No sir. Next, the trial court inquired into Lambert’s competency to plead guilty. The court questioned Lambert’s attorney, Romero, and the prosecuting attorney, Rnodell, about the findings of Dr. Mays, the mental health professional who had examined Lambert prior to trial. Satisfied that Lambert was competent, the court then heard the following testimony from Romero: Mr. Romero: For the record, my client has indicated to me that he had been thinking about this decision for quite sometime [sic]. We had — I had met with him on a regular, on a daily basis for the last two weeks preparing him for trial, and also with an anticipation of a plea agreement that was initially rejected by the State also. So it’s not something he decided spontaneously or made a compulsive decision, impulsive decision, excuse me. I gave him the Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty and he read it to me aloud, word by word, except for pages, the last two pages. Also present during the reading of the Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty was an employee for Grant County jail. After thoroughly reading the statement on the plea of guilty I asked my client specifically if he understood the charge and he responded affirmative. He agreed with the elements. Also I made it quite clear to him if he understood the rights that he was giving up and he responded affirmative that he understood every right. And that the sentence for this was life imprisonment without possibility of parole. He also agreed to the other parts of the statement on plea of guilty, Your Honor. The trial court then methodologically recited each inapplicable provision of the plea agreement to ensure that Lambert understood precisely what he was — and what he was not — agreeing to: The Court: All Right. Thank you, Counsel. Mr. Lambert, if you’ll stand please. One last detail here, Mr. Lambert. There are several paragraphs of this statement that I’m sure you discovered as you read through don’t really apply to this case. Lambert: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: And the way the form is printed, they ask you and I both initial, crossing those out. Instead of doing that I’m simply going to do it aloud. There is a paragraph here called paragraph I that relates to being sentenced for two or more violent offenses, do you understand that does not apply? Lambert: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: There is a paragraph called paragraph J that applies to or relates to placement in the community after release from prison, and understand that because of the sentence that’s mandatory in this matter, there will be no release to community placement? Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: There is a paragraph K relating to first-time offenders and you realize that you are not eligible to be sentenced as a first-time offender? Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: There is a paragraph called M that relates to sex offenses, prostitution and drug offenses with hypodermic needles; you recognize that does not apply? Lambert’s answers demonstrated that he had thoroughly read each provision of the plea agreement: Lambert: Yes, sir. I think you forgot one, Your Honor, number L. The Court: Well that one begins with or says “if I have a driver’s license” and I recognize that you do not. I appreciate your pointing that out. Paragraph P also relates to sex offenses. You recognize that does not apply? Lambert: Yes, sir. Finally, the trial court questioned Lambert to determine whether he was voluntarily pleading guilty: The Court: Mr. Lambert, has anyone put any pressure on you to enter a plea to this amended charge? Lambert: No, sir. The Court: Has anyone promised you any treatment other than the mandatory sentence I’ve outlined? Lambert: No, sir. The Court: Has anyone threatened you in any way? Lambert: No, sir. The Court: When I say anyone, I mean that literally; anyone inside the court system, in the jail, outside? Lambert: No, sir. The Court: Is the plea that you intend to enter to this charge a free and voluntary act and decision on your part? Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: And do you base that decision on what you believe to be in your best legal interest? Lambert: Yes, sir. The Court: Mr. Lambert, do you have any questions for me? Lambert: No, sir. The Court: To the Amended Information in this case charging you with Aggravated Murder in the First Degree in the death of Veda [sic] Smithson, what is your plea? Lambert: Guilty. The Court: Noting that the defendant has adopted the probable cause statement filed by the State as a factual basis for the plea, that plea is accepted. That afternoon, Lambert received the sentence mandated by state law and set forth in his plea agreement: life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or other release. Significantly, the record contains another note, presumably written by Lambert on the day of his plea, entitled “Responsibility.” In the note, Lambert stated: Today is the day I took responsibility for my actions, it is also the day I start my life in prison.... Maybe I will survive where I’m going, but we can never tell, the guards may come one day and find me dead in my cell, but at least I know in my heart and mind that I have taken responsibility for my crime. B. State Court Post-Conviction Revieiv and Procedural History 1. Washington Court of Appeals After serving approximately one year of his life sentence, Lambert procured new counsel and filed a Personal Restraint Petition with the Washington Court of Appeals, challenging his conviction on numerous grounds. He alleged that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent because he entered it without the advice of counsel and did not understand that it would result in life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He alleged that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney, Romero, was associated in the same public defender group as Earl, the attorney representing Betancourt (Lambert’s co-defendant). He also alleged that he was denied constitutionally adequate representation because his attorney misadvised him to stipulate to adult court jurisdiction and failed to advise him against entering a plea that resulted in the same sentence he would have received had he been convicted after a trial. In an effort to permit Lambert to make a record in support of his claims, the Washington Court of Appeals ordered Lambert’s prior attorney, Romero, to submit to a deposition by Lambert’s current counsel. At the deposition, Romero was questioned at length regarding his relationship with Betancourt’s attorney, Earl, and his representation of Lambert both prior to and in connection with his guilty plea. At several points during the deposition, Lambert’s current attorney effectively dissuaded Romero from answering several questions regarding his representation of Lambert by asserting attorney-client privilege. After reviewing the evidence and deposition testimony, the Washington Court of Appeals issued an eleven-page Order Dismissing Lambert’s Personal Restraint Petition, in which the court outlined its understanding of the facts and its reasons for dismissing each of Lambert’s claims. In re Lambert, No. 18069-7-III (Wash.Ct.App., Nov. 17, 1999) (hereinafter “Order”). Beginning with the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest, the court observed that “If Mr. Earl and Mr. Romero were associated in the same firm, then their representations of Mr. Betancourt and Mr. Lambert were adverse and violated [Washington Rule of Professional Conduct] 1.7(b).” Order, supra, at 3. After reviewing the deposition testimony, however, the court concluded that Romero and Earl were not associated in the same firm; rather, they were each independent contractors of The Defenders, which held the public defense contract for Grant County. Order, supra, at 3-4. Romero and Earl each maintained separate law offices in the same building. Different clerical workers were assigned to each attorney. Romero kept his files separate, did not share a bank or trust account with Earl or with Earl’s firm, and had his own business cards and letterhead. Therefore, the court concluded that”[t]he record does not support Mr. Lambert’s allegations that Mr. Romero had a conflict of interest.” Order, supra, at 4. The court then proceeded to analyze Lambert’s claim that Romero provided him ineffective assistance of counsel because he allegedly did not advise him, at the time he stipulated to the decimation of juvenile court jurisdiction, that the sentence in superior court for an aggravated murder conviction was mandatory life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. In support of this claim, the court considered the declaration of Simmie Baer, an attorney specializing in juvenile law, that Romero’s representation in this regard fell below the minimum standards of competency in the profession. The court also considered Romero’s deposition testimony, wherein he stated that he did not recall the specifics of his conversations and advice to Lambert, but believed he probably told Lambert it was not to his advantage to stipulate to the declination. The court phrased the legal standard for judging this claim as follows: To prevail in a claim of ineffective assistance, a petitioner in a personal restraint petition must show by competent evidence that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance resulted in his actual and substantial prejudice. Here, Mr. Lambert must show that Mr. Romero’s performance was deficient because he allegedly failed to advise him of the mandatory sentence in adult court, and that it was probable he could have opposed declination of juvenile court jurisdiction successfully, if he had chosen to do so. Order, supra, at 5 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Citing the factors influencing a juvenile court’s decision to decline jurisdiction as outlined in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), the court concluded that Lambert had not satisfied the latter requirement. Order, supra, at 5-7. According to the court, the first factor — the seriousness of the offense — weighed against Lambert as aggravated first-degree murder is the most serious homicide. The second and third considerations — • whether the juvenile committed the offense in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner, and whether the offense was against persons or against property — similarly weighed against Lambert who, according to his own confession, willfully and violently shot Mrs. Smithson while she was on the telephone calling for help. Given Lambert’s confession, which was crucial to the State’s proof, the fourth consideration — the merit of the State’s case against Lambert — likewise weighed against retaining juvenile court jurisdiction. The fifth consideration — the desirability of one trial in adult court in cases involving adult co-defendants — was inapplicable because the other perpetrator was also a juvenile. Both the sixth and seventh considerations — the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile and his prior criminal history — weighed against retaining juvenile jurisdiction. The court found no evidence that Lambert, age 15 at the time of the murders, was immature or unsophisticated for his age, and his prior criminal record included a sex offense and a theft conviction. Finally, the court inquired into the eighth consideration— whether the juvenile system could adequately protect the safety of the community — concluding that it could not, since it only has authority to detain juveniles until their twenty-first birthday. Finding that “[vjirtually none of the Kent factors favored retention of juvenile court jurisdiction in Mr. Lambert’s case,” the court reasoned that under these circumstances it could not conclude that “a possibility, let alone a probability, of retention of juvenile court jurisdiction existed, even if Mr. Lambert had opposed declination.” Order, sivpra, at 7. The court concluded that Lambert had failed to establish actual prejudice to his interests resulting from Romero’s alleged failure to advise him. Accordingly, the court dismissed his claim of ineffective assistance premised on this ground. Id. The court next assessed Lambert’s claim of inadequate representation due to his alleged belief that he would get a shorter sentence if he pled guilty rather than proceeding with trial and potential conviction. Lambert again claimed that Romero did not advise him to the contrary. The court found this allegation contradicted by the record: His statement on plea of guilty recites that the punishment for aggravated first degree murder is mandatory life imprisonment. And, at the guilty plea hearing, the superior court was careful to insure that Mr. Lambert understood that the court had no discretion in this regard, and the punishment was the same whether he pleaded guilty or the jury convicted him. Regardless of Mr. Lambert’s assertions about his counsel’s failure to advise him, it is clear that a reasonable person in Mr. Lambert’s position would have known what his sentence was even before the court formally imposed it. Order, supra, at 7-8 (citing People v. Thew, 201 Mich.App. 78, 506 N.W.2d 547, 550 (1993) (despite defendant’s seventh-grade education and claim of psychiatric problems, trial court’s advice that it had no discretion but to sentence him to life without parole was sufficient for court on appeal to reject his argument he did not understand that sentence was mandatory)). The court used the same evidence and analysis to reject Lambert’s alternate assertion that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Order, supra, at 8. Finally, the court considered Lambert’s claim of ineffective assistance premised on the fact that Romero accepted his decision to plead guilty after consulting with him for a very short time and in the presence of a jail employee. Lambert contended that he had questions he wanted to ask Romero during their brief conversation regarding his guilty plea, but he did not feel comfortable asking them within earshot of the jailer. The court considered Lambert’s allegation that he was unaware if he proceeded to trial he might be convicted of a lesser offense, and that his conversation with Romero about his decision to plead guilty lasted between five and ten minutes and went as follows: When I told Mr. Romero I wanted to plead guilty, he said, “Whatever you want.” He did not ask me why I wanted to plead guilty. He did not suggest that we go on with the trial for a day or two, while I thought very carefully about whether I really wanted to plead guilty. He did not try to talk me out of pleading guilty. He did not give me any advice one way or another on whether I should plead guilty. Order, supra, at 8. To resolve this claim, the court again reviewed the deposition testimony in which Romero testified that he told Lambert he would not gain any advantage by pleading guilty. Romero consistently asserted that Lambert expressed a desire to plead guilty in order to feel better about himself and to resolve the entire situation. The court noted Romero’s testimony that he had no specific recollection as to whether he advised Lambert not to plead guilty, and his testimony that a reasonable probability existed that a jury would have acquitted Lambert of the first-degree aggravated murder of Mr. Smithson and convicted him only of the non-aggravated first-degree murder of Mrs. Smithson. The court also considered the declaration of Michael Iaria, an attorney specializing in criminal defense, who testified that Romero’s performance fell below the objective standard of practice in the profession in several areas, including his meeting with Lambert in the presence of a jail employee. Yet, the court found other evidence which contradicted this testimony. Notably, at the guilty plea hearing, Romero advised the court in Lambert’s presence that Lambert had indicated to him that he had been thinking about pleading guilty “for a long time.” Order, supra, at 10. Romero stated that he had instructed Lambert to read the statement on plea of guilty out loud, and that he had ensured that Lambert understood the charge. The court also noted that Lambert was questioned directly by the trial court on these issues. Applying the law to the facts so found, the court articulated the following test for challenging a guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance: (1) he must show counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced him. In re Personal Restraint of Oseguera-Acevedo, 137 Wash.2d 179, 198, 970 P.2d 299 (1999) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674] (1984)). In the context of a guilty plea, he must show “a reasonable probability [existed] that, but for counsel’s errors, [he] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. at 198-99 [970 P.2d 299], “A bare allegation that a petitioner would not have pleaded guilty if he had known all the consequences of the plea is not sufficient to establish prejudice under the ... test.” Riley, 122 Wash.2d at 782 [863 P.2d 554]. Rather, “the petitioner must present [] at least a prima facie case showing actual prejudice.” Id. Order, supra, at 11. The court concluded that Lambert’s bare allegation that he would not have pled guilty had Romero strongly opposed his decision was contradicted by the weight of the evidence and was insufficient to establish prejudice. In support of its conclusion, the court cited Lambert’s Statement on Plea of Guilty and the record of the plea hearing, both of which tended to establish that Lambert understood the charge and sentence to which he was pleading. Moreover, despite Romero’s unsupported assertion that a jury may have convicted Lambert of only one count of non-aggravated first-degree murder, the court found that Lambert’s own confession — by itself — described facts that would support a conviction of two counts of aggravated first degree murder. After distinguishing other cases addressing effectiveness of counsel representing minors in guilty pleas, the court concluded that Lambert had failed to establish the prejudice prong of his argument and was not entitled to relief on the basis of ineffectiveness. Accordingly, the court denied Lambert’s personal restraint petition. Order, supra, at 12. 2. Washington Supreme Court On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, Lambert again challenged his plea and conviction. To resolve his claims, the Washington Supreme Court undertook an independent review of the record. In an eight-page written Ruling Denying Review by the Commissioner, it concluded that Lambert had failed to state facts that would entitle him to post-conviction relief. In re Personal Restraint Pet. of Lambert, No. 68929-6 (Wash., Feb. 7, 2000) (hereinafter “Ruling”). Initially, the court noted that the attorney-client privilege was improperly asserted during Romero’s deposition because “by accusing Mr. Romero of representing him ineffectively, Mr. Lambert waived the attorney-client privilege to the extent necessary to enable counsel to respond to his allegations.” Ruling, supra, at 3 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (inquiring into counsel’s conversations with the defendant “may be critical to proper assessment of ineffective assistance claim”); State v. Chervenell, 99 Wash.2d 309, 662 P.2d 836, 840 (1983)). Nonetheless, the court concluded that Romero’s testimony, together with the documents he provided and the affidavits submitted by the State, was adequate to dispose of Lambert’s conflict of interest claim. The court noted that in order to prevail on this claim, Lambert “must show that counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Ruling, supra, at 4 (citing Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 783, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)). Reviewing the evidence, the court found that “[t]he potential for such conflicts ... does not necessarily exist when, as in this case, codefendants are represented by different attorneys, albeit in the same public defender office.” Ruling, supra, at 4 (quoting United States v. Trevino, 992 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir.1993)). The court found no evidence indicating that Romero and Earl shared any confidential communications either directly or by viewing the other’s files. Ruling, supra, at 5 (citing United States v. Turchi, 645 F.Supp. 558, 563 (E.D.Pa.1986)). Although Romero’s contract allowed him to rent office space from Earl and Earl, Inc., it did not permit him access to any files owned by Earl and Earl, Inc., and his contact with other public defenders was minimal. Finding that Romero and Earl did not even discuss the Smithson murder case, the court rejected Lambert’s claim of ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest. Ruling, supra, at 5. The court used a similar analysis to dispose of Lambert’s claim that Romero failed to investigate Betancourt’s criminal history because of his relationship with Earl. Id. The court found this allegation speculative, unsupported, and largely immaterial. Reasoning, primarily, that Be-tancourt was merely one of three witnesses expected to provide extremely damaging testimony against Lambert at trial, the court ultimately concluded that Lambert had not shown that Romero’s error was caused by, or even related to, Earl’s representation of Betancourt. Id. Next, the court addressed Lambert’s claim of ineffective assistance premised on Romero’s decision to stipulate to the declination of juvenile court jurisdiction. Ruling, supra, at 6. Citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052, the court noted that Lambert must show that he was prejudiced by Romero’s error. Ruling, supra, at 6. Responding to Lambert’s argument that a declination order is per se prejudicial, the court stated, “That may well be true if the declination order is itself erroneous. But there is nothing erroneous about this declination order unless Mr. Lambert was deprived of his right to effective assistance in connection with its entry. And he was not deprived of that right unless there is a reasonable probability that counsel’s error affected the outcome of the declination proceeding.” Ruling, supra, at 6 (citing State v. Jack, 144 N.J. 240, 676 A.2d 545, 551 (1996)). Again, citing the factors set forth in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), the court concluded that, because the evidence favored declination, the result in Lambert’s case would have been the same despite Romero’s stipulation, Romero’s alleged error did not affect the outcome, and it was, therefore, not prejudicial. Ruling, supra, at 7. Finally, the court addressed Lambert’s arguments challenging the validity of his guilty plea. Ruling, supra, at 7-8. Reviewing the evidence in the record, the court found that, under the circumstances, a reasonably competent attorney could conclude that Lambert stood to gain some personal advantage by entering the guilty plea that he had proposed; namely, Lambert avoided being labeled a double murderer and sitting through a trial in which the State’s case against him was extremely strong. Based on the evidence in the record, both of these results were apparently of some importance to Lambert at the time. Ruling, supra, at 7. Additionally, the court found Lambert’s claim that he thought he was shortening his sentence by pleading guilty unsupported by the evidence in the record. In particular, the court noted that the psychological report on Lambert demonstrates that he understood the seriousness of his crime and the punishment which could attach. Ruling, supra, at 8. The court also relied on Lambert’s statements to the court before entering his plea that he understood a conviction on one count carried a mandatory sentence of “life in prison without the possibility of parole.” Id. Lambert did not explain by affidavit or otherwise the alternative meaning he ascribed to these words, and the court found the term of confinement neither confusing nor unclear. On the basis of all of the evidence in the record before the court, it concluded that Lambert had not shown that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his personal restraint petition or that review was otherwise called for. Id. Accordingly, the court denied Lambert’s motion for discretionary review. Soon thereafter, Lambert filed a motion to modify the ruling. The supreme court denied that motion on May 2, 2000. C. Federal Court Habeas Review and Procedural History After exhausting his constitutional claims in state court, Lambert filed an initial habeas petition, on May 3, 2000, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The matter was transferred to the Eastern District of Washington, and an amended petition was filed on May 19, 2000. Lambert’s habeas petition renewed his two main allegations — that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Specifically, Lambert alleged that Romero provided ineffective assistance of counsel (a) when he stipulated to the juvenile court’s declination of jurisdiction and transfer of Lambert’s case to adult court, (b) in conjunction with Lambert’s guilty plea and the investigation preceding it, and (c) because Romero labored under an actual conflict of interest created by his relationship with the attorney representing Lambert’s co-defendant. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 248 F.Supp.2d 988, 993 (E.D.Wash.2003). The district court granted Lambert’s request to conduct discovery. Concluding that the Washington state courts had failed to conduct a “full and fair hearing to reasonably find the relevant facts and resolve inconsistencies,” the district court also granted Lambert’s request for an evi-dentiary hearing. Id. at 994. In the evi-dentiary hearing, which commenced June 11, 2002 and concluded the following day, the district court heard testimony from nine witnesses for Lambert and one witness for the state. Id. After the hearing, the district court allowed the parties to file post-hearing briefing and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its post-hearing brief, the State challenged an allegation that Lambert raised for the first time in federal court: that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel because Romero did not learn that the tape-recorded confession he provided to police had been “enhanced,” or re-recorded at a higher volume, by police. Detective Mat-ney of the Grant County Sheriffs Department had filed a report explaining his actions on May 24, 1997, and this evidence was provided to Lambert’s counsel during discovery prior to the Washington Court of Appeals’ ruling on his Personal Restraint Petition. Id. The district court rejected the State’s contention that Lambert failed to exhaust the “enhanced tape recording” basis for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. Finding “no evidence that Mr. Lambert knew of the enhanced tape issue prior to filing his federal habeas petition and deliberately withheld it from the state courts,” the court concluded that the issue did not fundamentally alter the ineffective assistance of counsel claim presented to the state courts. Id. at 995 (citing Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257-60, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986)). On the basis of this evidence, the district court subsequently granted Lambert’s request to depose former Grant County Sheriff Detective Ronald Thompson. Lambert, 248 F.Supp.2d at 995. The district court next inquired into the applicable standard of review. Id. at 997. After noting that the case is governed by AEDPA, the court outlined its understanding of the deferential review mandated by the statute. Id. According to the district court, a habeas petition is appropriately granted if the state court’s “factual findings were clearly erroneous,” which requires a finding, “in effect, that the state court was wrong and the petitioner is correct.” Id. (citing Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir.2002)). The court also noted that under AEDPA, state court factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness, but concluded that the Washington courts’ findings did not deserve such deference because “adjudication on the merits in state court [was] not possible” after “the state court deni[ed Lambert] an evidentiary hearing to develop facts on [his] claim[s].” Id. at 998 (citing Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2002)). The court also declined to defer to the Washington courts’ findings concerning Romero’s alleged ineffective assistance because certain evidence supporting that claim — namely, the enhanced tape recording of Lambert’s statement to the police and the transcription error — was produced only at the federal evidentiary hearing. See Lambert, 248 F.Supp.2d at 998 (“Deference should not be accorded to state court findings of fact related to this issue.” (citing Killian, 282 F.3d at 1208)). Concluding its analysis of the standard of review, the district court gave one-sentence mention to the prospect that even if the state court’s factual findings are deserving of deference, “Lambert has rebutted the factual determinations with clear and convincing evidence.” Id. Relieved of the state court’s findings, the district court then proceeded to adjudicate the merits of Lambert’s claims anew. Id. at 998-1008. First, concluding that the state courts erroneously considered the claim, the district court dismissed, with prejudice, Lambert’s claim of ineffective assistance premised on Romero’s stipulation to transfer his case from juvenile court. Id. at 999-1000. According to the district court, this ground could not be considered as an independent constitutional violation because it occurred prior to the entry of Lambert’s guilty plea. Id. at 999 (citing Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); Ortberg v. Moody, 961 F.2d 135, 137-38 (9th Cir.1992); Rodriguez v. Ricketts, 798 F.2d 1250, 1252 (9th Cir.1986) (“a guilty plea in adult court waives defects in a juvenile fitness hearing”)). The court next considered Lambert’s claim that Romero provided ineffective assistance in conjunction with his guilty plea and the investigation preceding it. Id. at 1000. Remarking that the “state court did not comment on Mr. Romero’s duty to investigate imposed by Strickland,” the court initially concluded that “there are no findings by the state court to which deference must be given.” Id. The court then considered the expert testimony of Michael Iaria — the very same expert witness heard by the state court — that Romero’s conduct fell below the objective standard of reasonableness. The district court concluded that, because of Lambert’s age and “possible medical problems,” Romero’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. Id. at 1001. The court next characterized the state court’s finding that “a reasonably competent attorney could conclude that Mr. Lambert had nothing to lose by pleading guilty” as an unreasonable application of the law of Strickland and Hill. Id. The court concluded that Romero’s failure to investigate prior to Lambert’s plea and his failure to dissuade Lambert from pleading guilty were objectively unreasonable, and held that the Washington court’s contrary finding was “clearly erroneous.” Id. at 1001. Revisiting the second prong of Strickland (i.e., that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense), the district court again ruled that two state court factual findings — (1) the finding that Lambert understood the meaning of his sentence, and (2) the rejection, based upon the record, of Lambert’s contention that he thought he was shortening his sentence by pleading guilty- — were “clearly erroneous” and rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 1002. After accepting other evidence and testimony offered by Lambert, the court concluded that “prejudice resulted from Mr. Romero’s failure to offer advice on the plea that adequately informed Mr. Lambert of the consequences.” Id. at 1004. The court also accepted Lambert’s testimony that “had he known of the enhanced tape recording and the transcription error he would have proceeded differently,” concluding that “prejudice resulted from Mr. Romero’s failure to investigate” as well. Id. Moving on to Lambert’s conflict of interest claim, the court again disagreed with the state court’s factual findings and, using an ethical imputed disqualification analysis, expressed concern about Romero’s ability to effectively represent Lambert. Id. at 1006-07. However, noting that the United States “Supreme Court has never applied the ethical imputed disqualification rule in Sixth Amendment analysis, but has only ‘assum[ed] without deciding that two law partners are considered as one attorney,’ ” the court concluded that Lambert had not established ineffective assistance of counsel based upon 17346 this ground. Id. at 1007 (quoting Burger, 483 U.S. at 783, 107 S.Ct. 3114). Accordingly, the court dismissed Lambert’s conflict of interest claim with prejudice. Finally, the district court reached Lambert’s allegation that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Id. The court declared that the state court’s determination that Lambert understood the meaning of his sentence was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. Reasoning that the finding was clearly erroneous and rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, the district court concluded that Lambert’s plea was not knowing and voluntary and his due process rights were, therefore, violated. Id. at 1008-09. On January 17, 2003, the district court granted Lambert’s habe-as petition and ordered the State to release Lambert from custody or to vacate his guilty plea and conduct a new trial in ninety days. The state of Washington subsequently timely appealed to this court, alleging numerous grounds for error. The State alleges that the district court erred by (1) not deferring to the state court’s factual findings and by applying a “clearly erroneous” standard of review; (2) finding that Lambert had exhausted his federal claims in state court; (3) granting Lambert habe-as relief on the basis that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent; (4) granting Lambert habeas relief on the basis that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during his plea and trial; (5) admitting the testimony of two experts in support of Lambert’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (6) abusing its discretion by issuing a protective order sealing one exhibit and portions of the testimony at the evi-dentiary hearing; and (7) abusing its discretion by limiting who could represent Lambert at re-trial. Lambert cross-appeals on the issues that the district court did not decide in his favor; namely, that his counsel had a conflict of interest because of an imputed disqualification and that his counsel was ineffective in stipulating to the transfer of juvenile jurisdiction. II. STANDARDS AND SCOPE OF REVIEW The outcome of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is frequently dictated by the applicable standard of review. In reviewing state proceedings under AEDPA, we are not called upon to decide the matter anew, nor are we permitted to review the state’s judgment under the same standards as we would a judgment on direct appeal from a district court. Before proceeding to analyze the various claims brought here on appeal by the state of Washington and on cross-appeal by Lambert, we must first determine the standard that we should employ when reviewing the district court’s decision to grant Lambert’s habeas petition and, second, the standard that a federal district court should employ when reviewing a habeas corpus petition. As to the first standard, we review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See DePetris v. Kuykendall, 239 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir.2001). Factual findings and credibility determinations made by the district court in the context of granting or denying the petition are reviewed for clear error. See Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2000). However, the district court’s application of AEDPA, as well as its conclusion that the standards set forth in AEDPA are satisfied, is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (characterizing mixed questions of law and fact as those in which “the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard”). We may affirm the district court’s decision on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the district court’s rationale. Paradis v. Arave, 240 F.3d 1169, 1175-76 (9th Cir.2001). The second standard — the standard that a federal district court should employ when reviewing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the first instance — requires a more complex analysis. As noted by the district court, because Lambert’s application for habeas relief was filed after the April 24, 1996 effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), the extent of review is governed by AEDPA. Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 210, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003); Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir.2003). While federal habeas corpus has always been an extraordinary remedy, not an alternative to the state’s own appellate system, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983), AEDPA imports a new scheme of federal review of constitutional claims that have been “adjudicated on the merits” by the state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (2003). Where it applies, AEDPA embodies the respect due a state court decision on collateral review in our federal system. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Inspired by principles of comity, finality and federalism, AEDPA establishes a highly deferential standard for reviewing state court determinations. See Bruce v. Terhune, 376 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam). Although AEDPA’s scheme is complex, and its provisions have been subjected to multiple, sometimes conflicting, interpretations, this much is clear: deference to state court determinations must follow an adjudication on the merits. A. Adjudication on the Merits Analysis and application of AEDPA’s standard of review is separate from the question of whether a state “adjudicated” a prisoner’s federal claims “on the merits.” However, the precise meaning of “adjudicated on the merits” is itself a difficult question that has divided the courts of appeals. See Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 53 (2d Cir.2001) (noting the division). As of yet, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has provided a clear definition. For shorthand description, our cases employ the term “evidentiary hearing” to signify a form of adjudication that is sufficient to trigger AEDPA deference. See Sophanthavong v. Palmateer, 378 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir.2004); Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1055 (9th Cir.2003); Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2002). In the present case, the district court concluded that no deference was due the Washington state court’s factual findings because it had refused to grant Lambert a full post-conviction evidentiary hearing. Lambert, 248 F.Supp.2d at 998. The term “evidentiary hearing” appears nowhere in AEDPA. Yet, respondents invite us to elevate it to the status of an indispensable prerequisite to the deferential scheme. We decline to hold that AED-PA’s reference to “adjudicated on the merits” authorizes us to review the form or sufficiency of the proceedings conducted by the state court. Thus, we will not read into “adjudicated on the merits” a requirement that the state have conducted an evidentiary hearing, or indeed, any particular kind of hearing. Rather, we give the phrase its ordinary meaning: in general, “an ‘adjudication upon the merits’ is the opposite of a ‘dismissal without prejudice.’ ” Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505, 121 S.Ct. 1021, 149 L.Ed.2d 32 (2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)). AEDPA states that an application for a writ of habeas corpus “shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings” unless deferential review warrants issuance of the writ. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The same section also refers to situations in which “the adjudication of the claim ... resulted in a decision,” id. at §§ 2254(d)(1), (d)(2), giving rise to the argument that the phrase “adjudicated on the merits” necessarily contemplates some sort of judicial process beyond simply rendering “a decision.” See Scott Dodson, Habeas Review of Perfunctory State Court Decisions on the Merits, 29 Am. J. Crim. L. 223, 230-31 (2002); see also Schriver, 255 F.3d at 64 (Calabresi, J., concurring) (finding ambiguous AEDPA’s use of the term “adjudicated on the merits” but preferring an interpretation which requires state courts to articulate their reasoning in order to trigger AEDPA deference). This interpretation ignores both the plain meaning of the terms and the context in which they appear. The word “adjudicated” means “to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits of the claim raised.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 27 (2002). When the term “adjudicated” is juxtaposed with the phrase “on the merits” and isolated in a dependant clause, the phraseology chosen by Congress naturally highlights the force — and perhaps the redundancy — of the qualifier “on the merits” as a definitional term designating the type of adjudication envisioned. Simply put, the judicial process contemplated by AEDPA’s use of the term “adjudicated” is plainly restricted by the force of the words “on the merits.” Elsewhere, the statute provides that “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (emphasis added). As exhaustion is typically considered a procedural bar to relief, use of the phrase “on the merits” in this section signifies an exception to the general rule, and use of the word “denied” directly limits this exception to a particular category of adjudications. Read in pari materia with § 2254(d), we are persuaded that, in this context, the term “adjudicated” refers to whether the petition for post-conviction relief was either granted or denied, whereas the phrase “on the merits” requires that the grant or denial rest on substantive, rather than procedural, grounds. Reinforcing our textual analysis is the usual presumption that when Congress employs a commonly used phrase like “adjudicated on the merits,” it intends that term to retain its ordinary meaning. See Miles v. Apex Marine, 498 U.S. 19, 32, 111 S.Ct. 317, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990) (“We assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation.”); RaNDy-hertz & James S. LiebmaN, 1 Federal Habe-as Corpus PRACTICE AND Prooedure 1422 & n. 4 (4th ed. 2001) (“[I]f a word is obviously transplanted from another legal source, whether the common law or other legislation, it brings the old soil with it.”) (quoting Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 537 (1947)). In the context of federal habeas