Bright v. United States

Background

Peter Bright, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for reconsideration of the court’s December 12, 2024 Opinion and Order. That earlier order had denied his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The present order addresses only whether the earlier decision should be reconsidered.

Bright’s Arguments

Bright reargued matters addressed in the earlier sixteen-page Opinion and Order. He also raised issues concerning his views about how the jury evaluated an entrapment defense, how the jury was allegedly misled about the distinction between a regular journalist and an investigative journalist, trial counsel’s failure to emphasize a government argument about condoms placed on bananas, and New York State statements concerning the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bright further argued that the court’s analysis under Strickland v. Washington was incorrect because the court discussed the strategic weaknesses of an entrapment defense without an explanation from trial counsel about counsel’s own thought process.

Court’s Reasoning

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy granted only in rare circumstances, such as when the court failed to consider evidence or binding legal authority. It said reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that might reasonably change the result.

The court concluded that Bright’s additional arguments did not alter its earlier conclusions. Regarding the analysis of trial counsel’s performance, the court relied on the rule that counsel’s performance is evaluated objectively. Courts must presume that counsel’s significant decisions reflected reasonable professional judgment and must consider possible strategic reasons for those decisions. The court stated that this analysis does not depend on counsel’s subjective intent or require counsel to confirm every part of the strategy.

Disposition

Judge Castel denied Bright’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the related civil case, Bright v. United States of America, No. 22 Civ. 8847 (PKC). The court also ruled that Bright had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability, a document required for this type of appeal. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.