Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
BACKGROUND
We sketch the factual and procedural terrain in broad
strokes.
slake
that
petitioner's
thirst
direct
by
consulting
appeal.
See
our
opinion
United
rejecting
States
v.
the
Angulo-
- 2 -
The jury found the captain and the engineer, along with
the petitioner (whom the government characterized as the ship's
first officer) and one other crew member, guilty of conspiring to
possess controlled substances with intent to distribute and aiding
and abetting.1
70506(b).
ordinary seamen).
jury
verdicts
on
various
panel
dissented
on
the
grounds,
including
the
alleged
that
the
evidence,
though
sought
both
rehearing
en
banc
The petitioner
and
writ
of
See Casiano-
Jimnez v. United States, No. 11-2049 (1st Cir. Nov. 30, 2012)
(unpublished order).
The district court held the evidentiary hearing in March
of 2013.
both testified.
that
"it
defendants testify.
would
be
detrimental"
to
have
any
of
the
The petitioner also put forth other grounds for section 2255
relief, but those grounds have been abandoned and need not concern
us.
- 4 -
defendants.
He likewise corroborated
It also declined as
ANALYSIS
Our
analysis
begins
with
an
overview
of
the
legal
appropriate
vehicle
for
claims
that
the
United States v.
on
an
ineffective-assistance
claim
performance
fell
below
an
objective
threshold
of
counsel's
deficient
performance,
there
is
reasonable
Cir. 2012).
In any trial, a defendant's right to testify in his own
defense is a "fundamental constitutional right" and is "essential
to due process of law in a fair adversary process."
Rock v.
rather
than
the
trial
judge,
The defendant's
bears
the
primary
- 6 -
F.2d at 1533.
See id.
It follows inexorably
unaware
of
his
right
to
testify
and
If the defendant
counsel,
without
right
performance.
to
testify
comprises
constitutionally
deficient
In determining whether
Id.
Where, as
- 7 -
133, 141 (1st Cir. 2002); Keller v. United States, 38 F.3d 16, 25
(1st Cir. 1994).
review.
performance.
start
with
an
appraisal
of
trial
counsel's
defense
on
behalf
of
all
the
defendants.
The
The court
- 8 -
Focusing instead on
But
During the
- 9 -
about the meeting cannot support the district court's finding that
there was a collective and informed decision, reached by all the
defendants (including the petitioner), that none of them would
testify.
There
See id. at
- 10 -
right existed.
took the bit in his teeth: he decided that the petitioner should
not testify and then foisted his decision upon the petitioner
without any meaningful dialogue.
record
contains
nothing
that
would
suggest
We hold,
We do not agree.
with the theme of the defense, it fell far short of what the
petitioner, had he testified, could have added. A party's explicit
"the most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases
is the defendant himself").
it was not until he was aboard the ship that (to fill a
vacancy) he was pressed into service as "first officer."
Contrary
to
the
district
court's
avowal,
the
petitioner's
testimony was not "the same" as the expert's testimony, but was
materially different (and far more exculpatory). Though the expert
testified to the petitioner's hypothetical lack of knowledge, the
petitioner would have testified as to what he actually knew.
So
as
to
non-involvement
lightly").
- 12 -
should
not
be
disregarded
He would
have explained away his status as "first officer" of the ship, and
made pellucid that he was a stranger to the captain and the crew.
These facts would have bolstered the petitioner's claim that he
was unaware of the presence of any contraband on the ship.
Given
petitioner's
this
tableau,
conviction
prejudice
depended,
in
is
material
obvious.
part,
The
on
the
The
petitioner's testimony would have hit this issue head-on and could
very well have turned the tide.
Nor does the record offer any basis for believing that
the petitioner, properly informed of his rights, would have made
a tactical decision not to take the stand.
consistent with that of the defense expert and it would not have
- 13 -
been
necessary
to
alter
the
joint
defense
strategy
had
the
CONCLUSION
We need go no further.
conspicuous
clarity
both
that
the
petitioner
received
Its failure to
- 15 -