Full opinion text
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Daniel Makiel was convicted in an Illinois state court for the murder of Katherine Hoch and the armed robbery of a gas station where she worked. He appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and raises two claims on appeal. First, he argues that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for failing to challenge two evidentiary rulings during his direct appeal. Second, he contends that his constitutional right to compulsory process was violated when the trial court prevented a witness from testifying on his behalf. We affirm. Although there were some problems in the state courts’ handling of Makiel’s case, he is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief. The state courts did not apply federal law unreasonably in concluding that Makiel’s counsel was not ineffective in selecting the issues to pursue on appeal. The evidence shows that his counsel selected the issues with care. One issue she raised drew a remand, and although the other two issues did not prevail, they both drew a dissenting opinion. The first issue Makiel complains she did not raise — an evidentiary ruling preventing the defense from impeaching prosecution witness Allen Martin with a pending forgery charge — was not so clearly stronger than the issues she did raise that the state courts were required to find ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. The second issue she did not raise — the trial court’s exclusion of Brian Spodach’s testimony about the reputations of prosecution witnesses Martin and Shane Miller — was not clearly stronger than the issues she raised. The state court also did not act unreasonably when it found no violation of Makiel’s constitutional right to compulsory process. The trial court excluded the testimony of eleven-year-old Tim Anderson, who would have blamed another young boy (not the adult Makiel) for the murder. This proffered testimony was uncorroborated at the time of trial, but its exclusion was an error. That was the basis for the state appellate court’s remand in the original appeal for an evidentiary hearing. See People v. Makiel, 263 Ill.App.3d 54, 200- Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d 941 (1994), from which we draw most facts in this opinion. By the time the state courts decided the constitutional issue, however, Anderson had completely disavowed his proffered trial testimony, and there was no reason to think his proffered trial testimony would have been probative or reliable. Under the circumstances, the state courts’ denial of relief was not an unreasonable application of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. I. Factual and Procedural History The complex history of this case spans more than twenty-five years. Several of our ultimate conclusions depend on evaluating the record as a whole, so we must describe in some detail each stage of Makiel’s process through the state and federal courts. A. The Murder of Katherine Hoch Katherine Hoch managed a Mobil gas station in Calumet City, Illinois. On the night of October 19, 1988, the gas station was robbed. She was taken into a back room and shot in the back of the head. The State initially charged three men with the murder and armed robbery: Samuel Ilich, Todd Hlinko, and petitioner Daniel Makiel. Ilich went to trial and was acquitted. After Ilich’s acquittal, Hlinko reached a plea agreement with the State. He agreed to testify against Makiel in exchange for dropping the murder and armed robbery charges against him. Makiel was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. Makiel maintains his innocence. B. Pretrial Proceedings On March 2, 1989, several months after the murder and robbery, police arrested Todd Hlinko on a drug offense, which also violated his probation from an earlier aggravated battery conviction. While in custody that day, Hlinko signed a statement saying that on October 19, 1988, Makiel went into the Mobil gas station alone, returned, and jumped back into the car, and that Makiel, Hlinko, and Ilich then drove to Makiel’s house. According to the statement, Hlinko saw a purse at Makiel’s house that night before they went to sleep. On March 16, 1989, the police arrested Hlinko again, this time for the murder and armed robbery at the gas station. After questioning by the police, Hlinko signed a second statement that was inconsistent with his first statement. In the March 16 statement, he again placed himself, Ilich, and Makiel at the gas station, but this time he told police that he stayed in 'the car while Makiel and Ilich went inside. He also told police that after Makiel returned to the car, he saw Makiel throw something out of the window but never saw a gun. On April 7, 1989, Makiel was indicted for the murder and armed robbery at the gas station. At the time, he was already in the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction on an attempted murder conviction. Indiana held an extradition hearing where Makiel was represented by counsel. The extradition request was granted, and Illinois authorities transported him from Indiana to Illinois on October 20, 1989. During the trip, an Illinois prosecutor questioned him about the crime. Makiel answered some of the questions and gave an arguably incriminating statement. Before trial, he moved to suppress this statement. The state trial court denied his motion. C. Trial Makiel went to trial in February 1991. No physical evidence directly linked him to the crime scene. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on witness testimony, especially from Hlinko, who reached a plea agreement with the State in October 1990 in exchange for testifying against Makiel. 1. Hlinko’s Plea Agreement Hlinko’s plea agreement in the murder case was unusually generous. Hlinko first pled guilty to the probation violation based on the sale of narcotics that led to his first arrest on March 2, 1989. Without any plea agreement on that charge, he was sentenced to five years in prison. His plea to the probation violation admitted the sale of narcotics, and he faced another possible fifteen years in prison on that charge. When the State first approached Hlinko to offer a reduced prison sentence in exchange for testifying against Makiel, he refused. Ilieh was then acquitted of the murder and armed robbery in a separate trial. After Ilieh’s acquittal, the State went back to Hlinko and made a much more generous offer: in exchange for his testimony against Makiel, Hlinko would receive five years in prison on the pending narcotics charge, which would run concurrently with the five-year term on the probation violation, plus the State would drop the murder and armed robbery charges. In effect, he would face no additional punishment on the narcotics charge or for the murder and armed robbery. This time, Hlinko accepted the deal. 2. Hlinko’s Testimony At trial, Hlinko testified that on October 19, 1988, he, Makiel, and Ilieh were driving a blue Oldsmobile Cutlass 442 belonging to a friend, John Miller, around Calumet City. In later testimony, John Miller said that he had loaned the car to Makiel and Hlinko and noticed from its condition the next day that it had been driven the night before. According to Hlinko, at about 11:00 p.m. Makiel said he “would stop and get some money.” They pulled up to the Mobil gas station and parked just off the road. They waited in the car for a few minutes until the two customers in the gas station had left. Then they parked the Cutlass next to a white van, which belonged to Katherine Hoch. Hlinko testified that Makiel got out of the car, and — contrary to his earlier statements to police — that Hlinko himself followed Makiel into the gas station. As they entered, Hlinko saw Hoch walking from the counter toward a back room. Makiel told Hlinko to “watch out,” pointed a gun at Hoch, grabbed her arm, and led her to the back room. As he acted as a lookout, Hlinko heard Makiel demand money from Hoch and heard noises like drawers slamming. Then he heard a single gunshot. Makiel left the back room holding the gun and a purse and went behind the counter to the cash register. Makiel picked up an envelope from the register, took two packs of cigarettes, and handed the cigarettes to Hlinko. Hlinko did not see anyone else in the gas station at the time. He estimated that they had been inside the store for only a few minutes. Hlinko and Makiel returned to the car, and Makiel put the purse under the driver’s seat. Once inside the car, Hlinko repeatedly asked Makiel, “What the hell was going on?” Makiel told Hlinko that “something went wrong” inside the station but not to worry about it. Hlinko testified that during the ensuing car ride, they stopped in an alley near Ilich’s house. Makiel left the car with the purse and walked toward a dumpster. Hlinko did not see what Makiel did at the dumpster, but he noticed that when Makiel returned to the car, he no longer had the purse with him. At about 11:30 p.m., the men reached the home of a friend, Shane Miller (no relation to the John Miller who owned the Cutlass). Shane Miller invited Makiel, Hlinko, and Ilich into his house, and the four of them smoked some marijuana. About five minutes after smoking, all four drove in the Cutlass to the Calumet Expressway. Makiel, who was driving, slowed the car down and took the gun from his pants as they crossed a bridge near Calumet City. He handed the gun to Hlinko and told him to get rid of it. Hlinko threw the gun out of the passenger-side window and into thé Cal-Sag River. Shane Miller, sitting in the backseat, asked Hlinko what he threw out the window. Hlinko said it was a gun. The four men then returned to the same Mobil gas station to get some gas. When they arrived, they saw police cars in the parking lot. A police officer stopped then-car, told them that something had happened, and directed them to leave. The four men then drove to Makiel’s house, arriving around midnight. Hlinko and Makiel went upstairs to MakieFs bedroom, while Ilich and Shane Miller used the downstairs bathroom. During the moments before Ilich and Miller entered the bedroom, Hlinko again asked Makiel what had happened, and Makiel again told him that something had gone wrong but not to worry. After Ilich and Miller entered the room, Hlinko heard Makiel tell Miller about the shooting. At about 1:00 a.m., John Pullybank and his girlfriend arrived at MakieFs house. No one said anything to them about the gas station incident. Pullybank and his girlfriend offered to go out and buy more alcohol. To Hlinko’s surprise, Makiel contributed $20 for himself, Hlinko, and Ilich. Hlinko testified that the $20 surprised him because Makiel usually had no money on him and Hlinko had paid for everything earlier that evening. In later testimony, Pullybank said that he was friends with Hlinko, Makiel, and Ilich, but he denied seeing Shane Miller while visiting MakieFs house that night. He also did not know for certain whether he had visited MakieFs house on the night in question. On cross-examination, defense counsel attacked Hlinko’s credibility in three main ways. First, counsel confronted Hlinko with his two earlier statements to police, which were inconsistent with each other and with his testimony at trial. In fact, at several points during cross-examination, Hlinko admitted that he “lied” to police during earlier parts of their investigation. Second, counsel confronted Hlinko with a letter he sent to Makiel in April 1989 (before he agreed to testify against Makiel) apologizing for falsely implicating him in his earlier statements to police. In that letter, Hlinko also wrote that police officers had beaten him when he initially denied knowing anything about the murder. Third, counsel walked through Hlinko’s prior criminal history and the details of his generous plea agreement with the State. 3. Shane Miller’s Testimony The prosecution called Shane Miller to corroborate Hlinko’s testimony. Miller testified that he was in the Cutlass with Makiel, Hlinko, and Ilich on the night of October 19 (after the murder occurred) and saw Makiel hand something to Hlinko while the men were on the Calumet Expressway. According to Miller, Makiel told Hlinko to get rid of it, and Hlinko tossed it out the window into the Cal-Sag River. Miller asked Hlinko what it was, and Hlinko told him it was a gun. Shane Miller also testified that the four men stayed at Makiel’s house that night for about twenty-five minutes. During that time, Makiel told Miller that he, Hlinko, and Ilich had gone to the Mobil gas station and that Makiel had shot the manager. Another man, Brian Spodach, later dropped by Makiel’s house and gave Miller a ride to Miller’s sister’s house. On cross-examination, defense counsel confronted Shane Miller with a signed statement from February 1990 saying that his earlier statements to police implicating Hlinko and Makiel in the gas station murder were untrue. He testified that the statement was written by Hlinko’s mother and that he signed the statement because she begged him. Defense counsel also pointed out that Shane Miller waited approximately five months before telling the police what he knew about the crime. 4. Allen Martin’s Testimony The prosecution also called Allen Martin to bolster Hlinko’s testimony. Martin testified that at about ll:00 p.m. on October 19, 1988, he and his girlfriend stopped at the Mobil gas station to buy gas. He recognized John Miller’s distinctively-painted Cutlass 442 parked along the fence on the east side of the gas station. He saw his friends — Makiel, Hlinko, and Ilich — sitting in the Cutlass. After he paid for his gas, he waved to the three men, who were still sitting in the Cutlass, got back in his car, and drove to a game room. He estimated that he was at the Mobil station for a total of three minutes and at the game room for about twenty minutes before he left to drive his girlfriend home. On the way, Martin passed the Mobil station and saw an ambulance and police cars. He read about the murder in the newspaper and later found out that his friends had been implicated in the crime. Martin testified that it took him a while to make a connection between having seen his friends at the gas station on October 19 and their possible involvement in the murder. 5.Martin’s Pending Forgery Charge On cross-examination, Makiel’s counsel attempted to impeach Martin in several ways. Counsel had Martin admit that he (1) had been drinking the night of the murder, (2) waited a long time before coming forward to the police, and (3) denied who he was when he was initially approached by a defense attorney. Makiel’s counsel also attempted to impeach Martin with a pending forgery charge. Counsel then asked Martin whether he had been charged with forgery, and Martin flatly denied it. Defense counsel then informed the court at a sidebar conference that he wanted to impeach Martin by introducing a certified copy of the pending charge. During this sidebar, the State did not contest the fact that Martin had a pending forgery charge. The trial court nevertheless barred defense counsel from introducing the charge and ordered both sides not to discuss it further in front of the jury. 6.Prosecutor Quinn’s Testimony Assistant State’s Attorney Patrick Quinn testified that on March 21, 1989 — before Makiel was indicted — he interviewed Makiel in the presence of police investigators after reading him his Miranda rights. Makiel denied knowing anything about the murder. Quinn informed Makiel that a witness had seen him with Hlinko and Ilich at the Mobil gas station around the time of the murder on October 19, 1988. At that point, Quinn testified, Makiel said that he remembered that he had stopped at the gas station on that night with Hlinko and Ilich to buy some cigarettes. 7.Physical Evidence A Chicago sanitation employee testified that on October 24, 1988, he found a purse containing Hoch’s driver’s license in a trash can in an alley less than ten minutes from Ilich’s home. Hoch’s husband testified that the purse belonged to his wife. A forensic scientist and fingerprint expert analyzed the purse and found sixteen latent prints suitable for comparison. Eight prints belonged to Hoch, but none of the remaining eight prints matched Makiel, Hlinko, or Ilich. The first police officer to arrive at the crime scene testified that he found a .38-caliber shell casing in the back room of the gas station, but it yielded no suitable fingerprints. Nor could the evidence technician find any suitable prints inside or outside the gas station. Divers searched the Cal-Sag River for the murder weapon but did not find it. 8.Makiel’s Alibi Defense Makiel presented an alibi defense. His sister Laura Kobak testified that he was babysitting on the night of the murder. Kobak testified that Makiel agreed to babysit so that she and her boyfriend could celebrate her birthday. According to her testimony, Makiel, Hlinko, and two others — Cory and Lisa Majszak — arrived about 6:30 p.m. on October 19, 1988. When Kobak returned around midnight, Makiel and Hlinko were alone with the children. In addition, Makiel presented several witnesses who testified that they had stopped by the gas station around 11:00 p.m. on October 19 and had not seen a blue Cutlass or a white van. Tony Rodriguez testified that he and another man visited Kobak’s house sometime after 8:00 p.m. on October 19. According to Rodriguez, when he arrived, Makiel, Hlinko, and both Majszaks were babysitting Kobak’s children. He also testified that he had seen John Miller’s Cutlass 442 “up on jacks” in Makiel’s driveway earlier that day. To rebut Makiel’s alibi defense, the prosecution called Cory and Lisa Majszak, who testified that they did not babysit with Makiel and Hlinko on the night of the murder. They testified that they babysat at Kobak’s house with Makiel and Hlinko only once, sometime after October 23, 1988. They also testified that they did not see Rodriguez on the evening they babysat with Makiel and Hlinko. The State also called a police investigator who testified that when he first spoke to Rodriguez about visiting Kobak’s house in October 1988, Rodriguez did not know the exact date of the visit. 9.Brian Spodach’s Potential Testimony Defense counsel also called Brian Spodach. Recall that Shane Miller testified that Spodach came by Makiel’s house and gave Miller a ride on the night of October 19, 1988. Spodach testified that he neither went to the house nor gave Miller a ride that night. In addition, defense counsel sought to introduce testimony from Spodach about Martin’s and Shane Miller’s reputations for truthfulness. The trial court excluded the evidence. According to defense counsel’s proffer, Spodach would have testified that he knew their reputations based on his contacts with other peopie in the community and that they had reputations for being “liars.” 10. Tim Anderson’s Potential Testimony Makiel’s counsel then sought to introduce the testimony of Tim Anderson. According to counsel’s proffer, Anderson would have testified that Makiel had nothing to do with the murder and armed robbery. Anderson was prepared to testify that on October 19, 1988, when he was nine years old, he snuck out of his parents’ home around midnight and met up with three friends: Brandon, Brian, and Jay. Jay said “let’s go get some money,” and the four boys drove Brandon’s car to the Mobil gas station. At the station, Jay took out an automatic handgun, cocked it, and went inside. Anderson heard a “loud shot.” Jay then returned to the car and said “I did it,” and the boys drove off. Later that night, Brian told Anderson that if he told anyone what had happened, Brian would shoot him. The prosecution moved in limine to bar this testimony “as not being relevant, not relating to this case and being too remote and uncertain and speculative.” The trial court conducted a sidebar and heard argument from both sides. The prosecutor presented a November 1990 written statement to police from Anderson that the incident occurred in August 1988, not October 1988 when Hoch was murdered. The prosecutor also questioned Anderson’s competency to testify, observing that Anderson was only eleven years old at the time of trial and that he had initially disclosed the story about the gas station murder to a psychiatrist when he was hospitalized for mental health isshes. The trial court asked defense counsel whether the November 1990 written statement was the expected testimony from Anderson. Defense counsel clarified that Anderson, if permitted to testify, would say that the incident occurred in October 1988, not August 1988. Counsel acknowledged that Anderson’s written statement to police said that the incident occurred in August, but he argued that the inconsistency was simply a matter for cross-examination — not a reason to bar the testimony altogether. The trial court granted the State’s motion and barred Anderson from testifying: “The Court finds, on the matter of relevancy, the testimony here would be too remote, too speculative.” It also discussed Anderson’s competency and the desire to avoid trying collateral issues during the trial: “The circumstances, taking into account a competency situation, both on a mental status and the age of the witness and the remoteness of the same, reference to time of the incident, such that the court would grant the State’s motion to bar.” Although the trial court discussed Anderson’s competency and whether it would inject collateral issues into the trial, it clarified: “The Court has not ruled on his competency.” D. Direct Appeal (Makiel I) Makiel appealed his conviction on three grounds: (1) the October 20, 1989 statement he made after his extradition hearing should have been suppressed, (2) the trial court erred in excluding Tim Anderson’s testimony, and (3) the prosecution made improper remarks during closing arguments. In a split decision, the state appellate court denied relief on Makiel’s claims regarding his pretrial statement and the prosecutor’s closing arguments, but it unanimously held that the trial court erred in barring Anderson from testifying. People v. Makiel, 263 Ill.App.3d 54, 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d 941 (1994) (“Makiel I”). The court identified two errors with the trial court’s handling of Anderson’s testimony. First, in determining that the testimony was “not relevant,” the trial court improperly relied on the State’s impeachment evidence (the November 1990 written statement to police) and confused relevance with credibility: “The circuit court, by relying on the factors it cited, essentially determined that Anderson’s proffered testimony was not sufficiently credible.” Id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 954. Since credibility determinations go to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility, “the circuit court may have erred by keeping relevant evidence from the jury based on the court’s impression of its credibility.” Id. Second, although the trial court said that it did not determine competency, the appellate court noted that concerns about Anderson’s competency might have improperly influenced the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by not examining Anderson to see if he was in fact competent to testify. Id. Accordingly, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court with the following instructions: We find that the circuit court here erred by failing to interview Anderson as a preliminary step to determine his competence and the relevance of his testimony. We therefore remand this case for such an inquiry. If both his competency and the relevance of his testimony are established, the circuit court is to grant defendant’s motion for a new trial. If for some reason Anderson is unavailable, or unwilling, to participate in the inquiry, or if the circuit court finds him incompetent or his evidence irrelevant, we retain jurisdiction in this matter. Id. Justice McCormick concurred in part and dissented in part. Id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 956-61. He agreed with the majority that the case had to be remanded to determine Anderson’s competency to testify, but he disagreed with the majority that the trial court needed to address the relevance of Anderson’s testimony on remand. Justice McCormick believed the majority had already decided that Anderson’s proffered testimony was relevant, so a remand on this issue was unnecessary. Id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 958. He also disagreed with the majority’s treatment of Makiel’s other two claims and would have granted a new trial. Id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 956, 961. Justice McCormick analyzed the evidence against Makiel in great detail, concluding that the evidence was “far from overwhelming” and that the State’s case “hinged largely on the credibility of Hlinko’s testimony at trial, which was inconsistent with all of his many pretrial statements, some of which he made under oath.” Id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 958. The dissent emphasized that Hlinko’s plea agreement “gave him a strong reason to lie,” that all of the physical evidence that allegedly corroborated Hlinko’s trial testimony was found before Hlinko accepted the plea deal, and that the allegedly corroborating testimony from Shane Miller and Allen Martin contradicted Hlinko’s testimony in several respects. Id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 959-60. Justice McCormick concluded: “Hlinko’s testimony ... is sufficient to support the conviction if the jury chose to believe it, but the evidence is closely balanced.” Id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 961. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied leave to appeal in October 1994. E. Evidentiary Hearing and Appeal After Remand (Makiel II) The evidentiary hearing took place in December 1996 before a different trial judge. Tim Anderson and his mother testified. The parties also entered stipulations regarding the testimony of police officers who investigated Anderson’s statement at the time of his hospitalization in 1990. Anderson recanted his earlier story implicating “Jay” in the gas station murder. He testified that in October 1988, the month the crime occurred, he was nine years old and that at the time of the murder, he did not know Jay or the other boys mentioned in his story. He did not meet them until 1990 — approximately two years after Hoch was murdered. He explained that he had fabricated the entire story to retaliate against the boys for bullying him. After the hearing, the trial court stated its findings about Anderson’s competency and the relevance of his testimony. On the issue of competency, the court found that Anderson was “intellectually challenged” at the time of Makiel’s trial, but that it did not have sufficient information to determine his competency to testify at the time of trial. It did find, however, that Anderson “was competent to testify at the December 30,1996 hearing.” On the issue of relevance, the court found that Anderson first told the story about Jay and the gas station murder to a psychiatrist or counselor in October 1990 while he was a psychiatric patient at a hospital. The court also found that Anderson told the same story to police the following month and then again to Makiel’s attorney sometime before his trial in February 1991. The court found that Anderson recanted the story for the first time four years later, in February 1995. The trial court concluded: Further, based upon his not telling the story until two (2) years after the event, that his story is totally [uncorroborated], his propensity to lie at an early age, his motive to fabricate, the fact that no one ever believed his story and his subsequent recantation of his story of the October 19, 1988 events involving his friend, I find that his testimony would be remote and speculative and, therefore, would not be relevant. Supp. App. 26. Makiel appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by determining that Anderson’s testimony was irrelevant, and that in any event the principles of Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), required its admission. The state appellate court affirmed. People v. Makiel, No. 1-97-2140, slip op., 296 Ill.App.3d 1067, 244 Ill.Dec. 877, 726 N.E.2d 1188 (Ill.App. June 8, 1998) (“Makiel II ”). Apparently focusing on the relevance of Anderson’s hearing testimony rather than his proffered testimony at Makiel’s trial, the appellate court held that Anderson’s “testimony” would have been irrelevant because it had been fabricated and therefore was not “material to establishing [Makiel’s] guilt.” Supp. App. 29. The court then addressed the Chambers argument, referring to the excluded evidence as Anderson’s “prior statements.” The court held that these “prior statements” constituted “inadmissible hearsay” and could be excluded under Chambers because they lacked insufficient indicia of reliability. Supp. App. 30-31. Citing Chambers, the court explained that “[w]hen judging the admissibility of [Anderson’s] declaration, it must be determined whether the declaration was made under circumstances that provide ‘considerable assurance’ of its reliability by objective indicia of trustworthiness.” Id. at 31. It then concluded that Anderson’s “prior statements” did not satisfy these criteria. Id. The Supreme Court of Illinois again denied leave to appeal in October 1998. F. State Post-Conviction Proceedings (Makiel III) While still awaiting the evidentiary hearing on Tim Anderson’s excluded testimony, Makiel filed a motion for post-conviction relief in June 1995 under 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/122-1 et seq. Makiel argued that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective because she did not argue in his direct appeal that the trial court erred by excluding (1) Allen Martin’s pending forgery charge and (2) Brian Spodach’s testimony about the reputations of Martin and Shane Miller. Makiel’s petition was initially stayed pending completion of his direct appeal and eventually denied without an evidentiary hearing. The state appellate court unanimously reversed, holding that Makiel had made a substantial showing of a deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. People v. Makiel, 358 Ill.App.3d 102, 294 Ill.Dec. 319, 830 N.E.2d 731 (2005) (“Makiel III”). On both of Makiel’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the court ordered an evidentiary hearing because his petition raised “unanswered questions of fact as to the strategy which motivated appellate counsel” not to challenge the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Id., 294 Ill.Dec. 319, 830 N.E.2d at 745, 748. The court noted, however, that, it was not taking a position on whether Makiel could ultimately prove his claims. Id., 294 Ill.Dec. 319, 830 N.E.2d at 749. G. Evidentiary Hearing and Appeal After Remand (Makiel IV) The evidentiary hearing was held on March 14 and April 4, 2008. Makiel presented the testimony of the assistant public defender who represented him in his original appeal. She testified that she could not explain why she did not challenge either of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. She also testified that she did not remember “specifically considering and rejecting” the two issues. The lawyer explained, however, that she reviewed the trial record and Maldel’s post-trial motion, consulted with her supervisor about which issues to raise, and discussed her strategy with Makiel during the appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Makiel’s petition. Makiel appealed again, and this time the state appellate court affirmed. People v. Makiel, No. 1-08-0921, 2011 WL 9548460, at *1 (Ill.App. Sept. 28, 2011) (“Makiel IV”). The appellate court held that the trial court had erred when it barred evidence of Martin’s pending forgery charge, but that appellate counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the issue because she “reasonably could have determined” that such a challenge “would not have been a meritorious issue on appeal.” Id. at *14. The court also held that Makiel had not established prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue. Id. On Makiel’s claim for failure to appeal the exclusion of Spodach’s testimony about reputation, the state appellate court relied on a purported state-law rule that Makiel failed to satisfy the burden of proof applicable to third-stage post-conviction proceedings because he relied exclusively on his initial proffer and failed to present additional evidence to support his claim. Id. (As explained below, the State concedes on appeal that state law imposed no such requirement on Makiel.) The court also concluded that Makiel had failed to establish prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure to raise this issue. Id. at *15. Once more, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied leave to appeal in January 2012. H.Federal Habeas Petition In December 2012, Makiel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court raising claims about the prosecutor’s remarks during closing arguments, the trial court’s exclusion of Tim Anderson’s testimony, and appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the trial court’s evidentiary rulings on Martin’s pending forgery charge and Spodach’s reputation testimony. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing and granted a certifícate of appealability limited to the claim about the prosecutor’s remarks. United States ex rel. Makiel v. Atchison, No. 12 CV 9644, 2013 WL 4538583, at *19 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 27, 2013). We granted Makiel’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability to include his other claims. On appeal, Makiel has abandoned the claim about closing arguments and raises only the claims about appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the evidentiary rulings and the trial court’s exclusion of Anderson’s testimony. II. Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. E.g., Harris v. Thompson, 698 F.3d 609, 622 (7th Cir.2012). Federal courts have authority to issue writs of habeas corpus for persons in state custody under § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under AEDPA, a federal habeas petition may be granted only if a state court’s ruling on a federal constitutional question “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme. Court,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2). The standard under AEDPA is “difficult to meet” and “highly deferential.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 . U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). Federal courts must avoid “using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.” Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2148, 2149, 183 L.Ed.2d 32 (2012) (per curiam), quoting Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 779, 130 S.Ct. 1855, 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010). A petitioner cannot prevail by showing simply that the state court’s decision was wrong. E.g., White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014). A petitioner “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Our review under § 2254(d) is limited to the record that was before the state court. Pinholster;• 131 S.Ct. at 1398. AEDPA’s deferential standard of review applies only to claims that were actually “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Where state courts did not reach a federal constitutional issue, § 2254(d) deference applies “only to those issues the state court explicitly addressed.” Quintana v. Chandler, 723 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir.2013), citing Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). The operative decision under review is that of the last state court to address a given claim on the merits. See Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 38, 45, 181 L.Ed.2d 336 (2011). III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” To demonstrate that his right to counsel was violated by ineffective assistance, Makiel must satisfy the familiar two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). First, he must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient because it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Second, he must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which means that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694,104 S.Ct. 2052. A. Standard of Review Under AEDPA, “the bar for establishing that a state court’s application of the Strickland standard was ‘unreasonable’ is a high one.” Allen v. Chandler, 555 F.3d 596, 600 (7th Cir.2009). “When § 2254(d) applies, the question is not whether counsel’s actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105, 131 S.Ct. 770. B. Performance To establish deficient performance under Strickland, Makiel must identify acts or omissions by counsel that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and could not have been the result of professional judgment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “The question is whether an attorney’s representation amounted to incompetence under ‘prevailing professional norms,’ not whether it deviated from best practices or most common custom.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105, 131 S.Ct. 770, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “The court must then determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To avoid the distorting effects of hindsight, “counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. 1. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel The general Strickland standard governs claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as well as trial counsel, Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000), but with a special gloss when the challenge is aimed at the selection of issues to present on appeal. Appellate counsel is not required to present every non-frivolous claim on behalf of her client. E.g., Mason v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir.1996). “This process of ‘winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on’ those more likely to prevail, far from being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986), quoting Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-52, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). In fact, when appellate judges address professional education programs on appellate practice, they almost always stress this need for careful selection of just a few issues on appeal. “Lawyers must curtail the number of issues they present, not only because briefs are limited in length but also because the more issues a brief presents the less attention each receives, and thin presentation may submerge or forfeit a point.” Knox v. United States, 400 F.3d 519, 521 (7th Cir. 2005). Because appellate counsel is not required to raise every non-frivolous issue on appeal, appellate counsel’s performance is deficient under Strickland only if she fails to argue an issue that is both “obvious” and “clearly stronger” than the issues actually raised. E.g., Brown v. Finnan, 598 F.3d 416, 425 (7th Cir.2010); Lee v. Davis, 328 F.3d 896, 900-01 (7th Cir.2003). Proving that an unraised claim is clearly stronger than a claim that was raised is generally difficult “because the comparative strength of two claims is usually debatable.” Shaw v. Wilson, 721 F.3d 908, 915 (7th Cir.2013) (reversing denial of habeas relief in unusually clear case of ineffective assistance in selecting appellate issues). 2.Appellate Counsel’s Process for Selecting the Issues In this case, evidence shows that Makiel’s appellate counsel approached the selection process diligently. At the evidentiary hearing, which occurred a full sixteen years after the direct appeal, the lawyer explained what she remembered about her process for selecting the issues. She admitted that she could not explain why she did not appeal the trial court’s evidentiary rulings about Martin’s pending forgery charge and Spodach’s reputation testimony. She also testified that she could not remember “specifically considering and rejecting” these issues. She explained, however, that she reviewed the trial record, including the documents in the record, transcripts of the relevant proceedings, and Makiel’s post-trial motion, which raised no fewer than 54 different issues. She also testified that she made notes of the issues she could possibly raise, discussed the case and the potential issues with her supervisor at the appellate defender’s office, and discussed the appeal with Makiel by letter and over the phone during the appeal. She also filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Illinois after losing on two of the three issues she raised. 3.The Issues Actually Raised on Direct Appeal Makiel’s appellate counsel chose to present three relatively strong issues on direct appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to suppress Makiel’s pretrial statement, which was given after Miranda warnings and after he had been represented by counsel in the extradition proceeding; (2) whether the prosecutor’s closing arguments were improper; and (3) whether the trial court improperly excluded Anderson’s testimony. Counsel prevailed on the issue of Anderson’s testimony. On the suppression issue, the panel majority noted that no case was “directly on point” and struggled to reconcile several cases pointing in opposite directions. See Makiel I, 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 952. On the closing-argument issue, Makiel’s counsel did not simply present a bare-bones criticism of the prosecutor’s closing argument. She criticized several types of comments by the prosecutor, all of which had some force: comments about facts not in evidence, comments about defense counsel’s failure to call alibi witnesses, and comments that arguably shifted the burden of proof to the defense. See id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 955-56. One justice on the panel dissented on both of these issues. See id., 200 Ill.Dec. 602, 635 N.E.2d at 957, 961 (McCormick, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 4.Allen Martin’s Pending Forgery Charge Having described counsel’s process for selecting the issues to raise and the issues she actually raised, we now turn to counsel’s failure to appeal the trial court’s exclusion of Allen Martin’s pending forgery charge. Makiel argues that this issue was obvious and clearly stronger than the suppression issue and the issue about the prosecutor’s closing arguments. The pending charge was, according to Makiel, critical impeachment evidence because it would have caught Martin in a blatant lie, shown that he had an incentive to seek favor with the government, and revealed that he had been accused officially of deception. The state court held that the trial court erred when it excluded this evidence at trial. Makiel IV, 2011 WL 9548460, at *13. Nevertheless, it concluded that appellate counsel was not deficient in failing to appeal this error because she “reasonably could have determined” that it “would not have been a meritorious issue on appeal.” Id. at *14. This was a merits adjudication, so we apply AEDPA deference and ask “whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105, 131 S.Ct. 770. The state court’s decision that appellate counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to appeal the forgery issue was a reasonable application of Strickland. Although we agree with Makiel that this issue was an obvious issue to appeal, we disagree that it was so clearly stronger than the issues actually raised that the state court was required to find ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. On the record before the state court, it was reasonable to conclude that appellate counsel reasonably decided not to raise this issue because she predicted that the error might well be deemed harmless. Even if appellate counsel’s prediction might have been incorrect (which we do not decide), there is at least a reasonable argument that counsel satisfied the deferential Strickland standard, which means that we may not disturb the state court conviction on this ground under AEDPA. A split decision under the circumstances, although not dispositive, supports our conclusion that it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that the issue was not clearly stronger than the issues raised. This is not a case like Shaw v. Wilson, for example, where the single claim actually raised was so weak that pursuing it “was the equivalent of filing no brief at all.” 721 F.3d 908, 915 (7th Cir. 2013). In Shaw appellate counsel failed to raise the promising issue that an Indiana statute, which limited the time for amending charging documents, barred the State from belatedly amending the charge from aggravated battery to murder. Id. at 916. Instead, appellate counsel filed a brief challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence but inexplicably conceded on appeal that the evidence could support either conviction or acquittal. In light of that concession, we said, the only argument raised was “dead on arrival.” Id. at 915. Here, by contrast, the three issues appellate counsel raised were much stronger. She drew a remand on one and a dissent on the other two. No rule limited Makiel’s counsel to just the three issues on appeal. We assume she could have raised the Martin forgery issue in addition to those she actually raised. Nevertheless, given the emphasis in appellate practice on not raising too many different issues and thus not diluting or burying an appellant’s strongest points, we see no unreasonable application of the Strickland standard by the state courts. See Howard v. Gramley, 225 F.3d 784, 791 (7th Cir.2000) (selection of proper issues is one of most important parts of appellate advocacy, and too many issues can distract appellate judges from stronger issues; appellate counsel who raised only one relatively weak issue was deficient but performance did not prejudice defendant). In fact, the evidence of effective assistance in the selection of issues is substantial here, particularly when we recall the results with the issues actually raised. Makiel counters with reasons appellate counsel should have doubted the merits of two of the arguments she raised on appeal. First, he argues that because the case law was unsettled on the suppression issue, it was necessarily weaker because the trial court’s error in excluding the pending forgery charge was clearly established under settled law. Second, he argues that the closing-argument issue was clearly weaker because attorneys are given wide latitude in closing arguments and the standard of review is deferential to the trial court. Neither point persuades us that the state court was required to find deficient performance under Strickland. Makiel’s position fails to account for the possibility that appellate counsel declined to raise the forgery issue because she predicted that the panel would deem the error harmless. Identifying a harmless error does not yield success on appeal. Appellate counsel’s ultimate goal in selecting issues is to “maximize the likelihood of success.” Smith, 528 U.S. at 288, 120 S.Ct. 746. Counsel must persuade the appellate court first that the trial court erred and then that the error was harmful. Accordingly, even if there is no doubt that a trial court made an error, appellate counsel can decline to raise an issue when she reasonably believes the error would be deemed harmless. See Howard, 225 F.3d at 790-91 (harmless-error doctrine and the standard of review are appropriate factors for appellate counsel to consider when selecting issues). Here, applying the AEDPA standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that appellate counsel could have reasonably predicted that the trial court’s exclusion of the pending forgery charge would likely be deemed harmless. Under Illinois law, this error would have been reviewed for harmless error under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). See People v. Young, 128 Ill.2d 1, 131 Ill.Dec. 86, 538 N.E.2d 461, 469-70 (1989), citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684,106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (improper denial of defendant’s opportunity to impeach a witness for bias is subject to harmless-error analysis). The harmless-error standard asks whether the State can “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. 824. The excluded impeachment evidence affected only Martin’s credibility. The state court reasonably determined that appellate counsel reasonably could have predicted that the issue would not likely have led to reversal because the evidence did not directly undermine Hlinko’s testimony. Hlinko’s testimony — not Martin’s — was the linchpin of the prosecution’s case, and it was corroborated by other evidence at trial. To be clear, we do not doubt the impeachment value of Martin’s pending forgery. Although Martin had been impeached by other means, the pending forgery charge would have caught him in a blatant lie (he had flatly denied the charge on the stand), shown that he had an incentive to seek favor with the government, and revealed that he had been accused officially of deception. As the State correctly conceded in oral argument, this excluded impeachment evidence was not cumulative because it was different in kind from the other impeachment evidence offered at trial. See United States v. Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 480-81 (7th Cir.2007) (impeachment evidence not cumulative when it represents “a new and potentially powerful line of inquiry”); Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590, 591-92 (7th Cir.2001) (same). Nevertheless, it was not unreasonable for the state court to decide that appellate counsel could have reasonably predicted that the damage it could have done to Martin’s credibility would not have extended to Hlinko and that, as a result, the appellate court might well find that its exclusion would not satisfy the Chapman standard. Cf. People v. Rosario, 180 Ill.App.3d 977, 129 Ill.Dec. 706, 536 N.E.2d 756, 760 (1989) (“The improper limitation of cross-examination does not warrant reversal where there is no showing of manifest prejudice to defendant, and where the prosecution’s case does not stand or fall based upon the credibility of that witness.”); see generally Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (applying Chapman standard to improper limit on cross-examination of prosecution witness calls for analysis of “a host of factors”); United States v. Petitjean, 883 F.2d 1341, 1348 (7th Cir.1989) (finding limit on impeachment of government witness was harmless). Makiel disagrees, pointing out that Martin corroborated one aspect of Hlinko’s testimony that no other evidence corroborated: the precise time of the murder. Consistent with the State’s theory of when the murder happened, Hlinko testified that Makiel shot the victim inside the gas station at approximately 11:00 p.m. Martin testified similarly, but, according to Makiel, no other evidence corroborated that timeline. The problem is that the specific timing of the murder was not essential to the State’s case against Makiel. Suppose for the sake of argument that the jury would have discredited Martin’s testimony entirely if defense counsel had been allowed to introduce the pending forgery charge. That would not necessarily mean that the jury would have discredited Hlinko’s testimony, especially in light of the other corroborating evidence. At best, Hlinko’s testimony about the timing of the murder might have gone uncorroborated. But even if the jury rejected the State’s theory of the specific timing of the murder, that alone would not necessarily establish reasonable doubt as to Makiel’s guilt. As a result, the state court did not apply Stride-land unreasonably in finding that appellate counsel’s decision not to pursue the forgery issue did not fall outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. But suppose that appellate counsel miscalculated and the panel would have found the exclusion of the pending forgery charge harmful under Chapman. Makiel still has not shown that the state court’s application of Strickland was unreasonable. A miscalculation constitutes-deficient performance only where the miscalculation was objectively unreasonable. “Strickland does not guarantee perfect representation, only a reasonably competent attorney.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 110, 131 S.Ct. 770 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). There is “no expectation that competent counsel will be a flawless strategist or tactician,” and an attorney is not incompetent simply because of a “reasonable miscalculation.” Id. The decision whether to raise the forgery issue was a judgment call that required an assessment of a long trial record and a host of issues, several of which could have been part of a competent appeal. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that appellate counsel’s selection of the issues so clearly fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance that the state court was required to find deficient performance. We recognize that even “an isolated error” can support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if it is “sufficiently egregious and prejudicial.” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). But “it is difficult to establish ineffective assistance when counsel’s overall performance indicates active and capable advocacy.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 111, 131 S.Ct. 770. Here, there is strong circumstantial evidence that appellate counsel performed her job capably. She reviewed the record, consulted with her supervisor about which issues to raise, and discussed her strategy with Makiel during the appeal. True, she also testified that she did not remember considering the specific issue of the trial court’s .exclusion of the pending forgery charge and could not explain why she failed to raise it. That is not surprising when the evidentiary hearing took' place sixteen years after the appeal, and Makiel’s post-trial motion in the district court raised 54 different issues, all of which appellate counsel had to sift through and evaluate. If there were evidence in the record indicating that counsel was neglectful or that she otherwise failed to comply with prevailing professional norms of appellate representation, our conclusion might be different. On this record, in light of appellate counsel’s relative success on appeal and her hearing testimony that she prepared diligently, the state courts could reasonably conclude that Makiel had failed to rebut the Strickland presumption of adequate assistance. See, e.g., Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 8-9, 124 S.Ct. 1, 157 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003) (per curiam) (state court decision not unreasonable under AEDPA where counsel omitted certain issues from closing argument but petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of adequate assistance). In sum, the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in evaluating appellate counsel’s failure to appeal the exclusion of Martin’s pending forgery charge. This issue, although obvious, was not so clearly stronger than the issues raised on appeal that the state court was required to find deficient performance under Strickland. In addition, there is strong circumstantial evidence that appellate counsel performed her job capably. Even if the state court did not reach the correct result under Strickland, it at least reached a reasonable one, which is sufficient under § 2254(d) to require denial of relief on this basis. 5. Brian Spodach’s Reputation Testimony Appellate counsel also did not raise the exclusion of Brian Spodach’s testimony about the reputations of Allen Martin and Shane Miller. Before we resolve the merits, we first address a threshold issue about the standard of review for this issue. The parties dispute whether we should consider Makiel IV or the state trial court’s decision reviewed in Makiel IV as the last state court decision on the merits of this claim. Makiel tells us to look at Makiel IV, which is the state appellate court’s decision after the evidentiary hearing in which appellate counsel testified. The appellate court held that appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the trial court’s exclusion of Spodach’s reputation testimony was not prejudicial, but it did not decide the issue of performance. The State, on the other hand, argues that we should look instead to the state trial court’s decision at the evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the state trial court held that appellate counsel’s failure was not deficient performance, but it did not address the issue of prejudice. The State argues that we should “look through” Makiel IV and consider the state trial court’s decision instead because Makiel IV incorrectly relied on an invalid or non-existent state procedural rule. Cf. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991) (describing situation where federal court will “look through” unexplained decisions to consider earlier reasoned decision). Because we conclude that Makiel is not entitled to relief on his claim even if we consider Makiel IV the last state court decision on the merits, we do not need to resolve this question. Accordingly, we assume, without deciding, that Makiel IV is the relevant “adjudication on the merits” within the meaning of § 2254(d). Makiel IV addressed only the issue of prejudice, so we review the issue of performance de novo. See Quintana v. Chandler, 723 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir.2013), citing Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Now to the merits. Assuming that de novo review applies, we conclude that appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the exclusion of Brian Spodach’s reputation testimony was not deficient under Strickland. Our conclusion follows from the principles discussed above. We agree with Makiel that the trial court’s exclusion of Spodach’s reputation testimony was an obvious error under Illinois law. According to Makiel’s proffer at trial, Spodach would have testified that Martin and Shane Miller had reputations in the community as liars. See Makiel III, 294 Ill.Dec. 319, 830 N.E.2d at 746-47 (summarizing Makiel’s proffer at trial). Under Illinois law, defense counsel should have been permitted to introduce this testimony as impeachment evidence. See id., 294 Ill.Dec. 319, 830 N.E.2d at 747, citing Rosario, 129 Ill-Dec. 706, 53