he was not a percipient witness to the events in the alley. At best, he could only testify to what he heard as he was taking a shower. Given the tangential nature of the testimony he offered, his testimony would not have undermined the evidence offered by the State. Similarly, although there was evidence that Tapia and Suarez heard shots in the alley and that they would have testified that they saw a red Blazer exit the alley after the shots, their testimony would not have contradicted or undermined the prosecution’s case. Unlike those cases in which we have found that the deficient performance was prejudicial, here, the additional witnesses would not have provided Villagrana with an alibi or exonerating evidence. See, e.g., Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1461 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Myers, 137 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th
holding that the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses and to admit a third party outofcourt confession to the crime was prejudicial holding that the failure to investigate and present the confession of a third party deprived defendant of the most critical evidence supporting his best defense holding that default and dismissal were proper sanctions in view of partys willful destruction of documents and records that deprived the opposing party of the opportunity to present critical evidence on its key claims to the jury