1. In 198 7 petitioner Guy Rowland was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in the State of California . In 1994 he exhausted his state remedies and sought relief in the federal district court of the Northern District of California. At that time the Local Rule s 296-8(b) and 8(c) of that court provided that a petition er's Motion for a Stay of Execution together with a Memorandum of Issues to be Raised , would constitute a federal petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . In good faith reliance on this Rule, Rowland's attorneys filed a motion in federal court for a stay of ex ecution together with a memorandum of partial list of issues to be raised. In accordance with the Rule, the first entry on the federal docket sheet of the case stated that a federal petition for habeas corpus had been filed. After legislation for the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( AEDPA ) was introduced in Congress, Rowland's attorneys did not accelerate the f iling a formal petition belie ving i n good faith that such a filing was not necessary given the Local Rule . On April 24, 1996, the AEDPA became effective. On June 28, 1996 , Rowland filed his formal petition which included the issues identified in his memorandum as well as others .
The first question presented is : Does the AEDPA apply where Petitioner's attorneys relied in good faith on the federal district c ourt's local rule s that Petit ioner 's filings constitut ed a petition for a w rit of habe as corpus, and where the federal district court 's docket entry identified his f ilings as a p ending peti tion for a w rit of habeas corpus , though he filed his formal petition after the effective date of the AEDPA ?

2. In the guilt phase of this capital case, Rowland was co nvicted of raping and killing the victim . To prepare for the penalty phase, t rial counsel hired psych ologist , Dr. Hugh Ridlehuber . As f ound by the Ninth Circuit, however, trial counsel performed deficiently by hiring Dr. Ridlehuber much too late . Furthe r, as found by the Ninth Circuit, trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to provide Dr. Ridlehuber Rowland's birth records which showed him to have had "jaundice, blood transfusion, convulsions, and an infection" at birth. Because Dr. Ridlehuber did not have the birth records, he testified in the penalty phase that Rowland did not suffer from any organic brain damage or other mental disability except for borderline personality disorder . After two and one -half days of deliberation, the jury senten ced Rowland to death .
In post-conviction proceedings in state court , Dr. Ridlehuber s aw the birth records for the first time. After reviewing the re cords, he declared that had he seen the records , he would have testified in the penalt y phase that there was a " very high probability " that Rowland suffered from organic brain damage at the time of his birth and at the time of the crime as well as from bi -polar disorder . The state court summarily rejected the post -conviction petition. The federal district court denied the federal habeas petition on summary judgment , and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Ninth Circuit held that trial counsel perfo rmed deficiently in hiring Dr.

Does the AEDPA apply where Petitioner's attorneys relied in good faith on the federal district court's local rules