p.m., her prior identification of the time as 3:00 p.m. would have been admissible under California law as a prior inconsistent statement, see Cal. Evid. Code § 1235, and her testimony still would have been far more useful than that of the witnesses who did testify. Finally, this argument does not address the failure to introduce Carey’s business records. We will not assume facts not in the record in order to manufacture a reasonable strategic decision for Alcala’s trial counsel. Even if Alcala’s trial counsel did offer a basis for his decision not to present alibi evidence, that basis would be unreasonable if it were unsupported by objective evidence because Dodwell’s testimony and Carey’s records were consistent with the alibi defense that counsel chose. See Lord, 184 F.3d at 1095 (<HOLDING>). Absent an objectively reasonable basis to
holding that counsels decision not to call witnesses was unreasonable because counsels stated reasons for disputing the witnesses credibility were not supported by objective evidence holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence holding that given trial counsels concerns about witnesss credibility and status as a felon his decision not to call witness was reasonable holding counsels decision not to call unfriendly witnesses to suggest that a third party had motive to kill the victim was not deficient holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial