trial that purported to demonstrate the positions of all the individuals in the hallway. 9 . We note that if the state courts had concluded without an evidentiary hearing that Branch's trial counsel’s performance had been deficient but nevertheless had denied Branch PCR relief because he did not satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland, it is possible that we would have granted Branch's petition without ordering that the District Court hold an evidentiary hearing. See Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 267 n. 10, 98 S.Ct. 556, 562 n. 10, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (observing that courts of appeals have permitted district courts to “discharge a ha-beas corpus petitioner from state custody without conducting an evidentiary hearing”); Noble v. Kelly, 246 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases 8 advisory
holding that a remand for an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary in part because the record negated the possibility that counsels omission was strategic holding absence of record harmless when hearing was not evidentiary and appellant failed to argue harm holding that the claim of cumulative error was rendered moot because all claims were rejected but one for which an evidentiary hearing would occur on remand holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing holding law requires court to consider full record of any evidentiary hearing even if hearing held by different judge