context: As we have explained, we can discern no reason on the current record to support counsel's decision not to call Samee and Robinson as witnesses to testify at trial. Nevertheless, because a determination of whether to grant Branch's petition turns on the reasons why his counsel did not call Samee and Robinson to testify and those reasons have not been developed in the record, an evidentiary hearing is required here.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 428 F.3d 501, 501
citation_a.parenthetical: "Of course, overcoming the strategic presumption does not, in itself, entitle Thomas to relief. It merely gives him the opportunity to show that counsel's conduct fell below objective standards of attorney conduct."
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Wilson v. Butler, 813 F.2d 664, 672 (5th Cir.1987) (remanding for evi-dentiary hearing because the record did not reflect whether trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present certain evidence); see also Thomas, 428 F.3d at 501 (“Of course, overcoming the strategic presumption does not, in itself, entitle Thomas to relief. It merely gives him the opportunity to show that counsel’s conduct fell below objective standards of attorney conduct.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 813 F.2d 664, 672
citation_b.parenthetical: remanding for evi-dentiary hearing because the record did not reflect whether trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present certain evidence
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Wilson v. Butler, 813 F.2d 664, 672 (5th Cir.1987) (remanding for evi-dentiary hearing because the record did not reflect whether trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present certain evidence); see also Thomas, 428 F.3d at 501 (“Of course, overcoming the strategic presumption does not, in itself, entitle Thomas to relief. It merely gives him the opportunity to show that counsel’s conduct fell below objective standards of attorney conduct.”).