Matthew Reeves v. Alabama.

Summary

Justice (author) dissents from the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, arguing that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals erred by requiring trial‑counsel testimony and by ignoring the extensive non‑testimonial evidence in the record when evaluating Reeves’s ineffective‑assistance claim. The dissent contends that the Court should have granted review and remanded for a whole‑record analysis consistent with Massaro and Strickland.