It was not unreasonable for Wisconsin courts to conclude that an expert witness would not have given different testimony if presented with all the facts.
“We cannot say that it was ‘unreasonable’ for the Wisconsin court to infer from the evidence presented to it that Drom would not have changed his testimony had he read the reports, especially since the eye-witnesses were all friends of Price and so might not seem credible to Drom. We might disagree with the Wisconsin court, but we would not have the strength of conviction that would enable us to declare its conclusion unreasonable. The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing in the district court—if as we greatly doubt we are permitted to consider any of it—would not alter our conclusion, notably because of Drom’s unavailability to testify at that hearing. We note finally that Price does not argue that the court’s selection and handling of Drom as a court-appointed witness deprived Price of due process of law.”
09-3851 Price v. Thurmer
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Goodstein, Mag. J., Posner, J.