The court held the facts of petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim tolled the one-year statute of limitation under AEDPA so that the time did not begin to run until he learned of a long-term romantic relationship between Bernard (a prosecution witness in another case) and Williamson (a prosecution witness in petitioner’s case). At the time the petition was filed, petitioner knew that Bernard had been heard talking on a public phone outside the courtroom, which included the mention of petitioner’s name. Bernard had approached Juror Harris, asked if he were on the jury, and handed him a piece of paper, saying, “call me.” In a motion for new trial, counsel mentioned the contact between Bernard and Harris, but stated he had not yet been able to interview Harris. In his petition, petitioner alleged that had his trial counsel investigated the possible jury tampering, counsel would have discovered the long-term romantic relationship between Bernard and Williamson, and that the trial court may have ordered a new trial.