United States of America v. Constantine

Background

A jury convicted George Constantine in 2022 of mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy arising from a staged trip-and-fall scheme. The court sentenced him to 102 months of imprisonment, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.

Constantine then moved without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a law allowing a federal prisoner to seek correction of a conviction or sentence based on a constitutional violation. He asked the court to vacate his conviction and sentence and grant a new trial. He alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.

Ineffective-Assistance Claims

The court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington. Constantine had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the alleged errors created a reasonable probability of a different result.

The court rejected Constantine’s claims that counsel should have cross-examined or impeached witnesses differently. It found that some alleged failures were contradicted by the trial record and that decisions about the scope and method of cross-examination were reasonable trial strategy. The court also found that the alleged discrepancies were minor and would not have changed the outcome.

The court likewise rejected claims concerning counsel’s failure to call particular witnesses. It concluded that counsel could reasonably have determined that the proposed testimony would have offered little value and that the additional testimony probably would not have changed the verdict.

The court rejected Constantine’s claims that counsel should have objected to testimony from several witnesses. Constantine did not identify valid grounds for the proposed objections or show that the objections would have affected the outcome. The court also noted that the Court of Appeals had previously found any error in admitting one witness’s testimony harmless.

The court rejected Constantine’s claim that counsel should have raised allegations of selective prosecution, unlawful wiretapping, and failure to disclose documents. Constantine did not provide evidence supporting those allegations, and the court stated that failing to make a meritless argument is not ineffective assistance. The court also found that the settlement of civil lawsuits by insurance companies was irrelevant to whether Constantine knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme.

Finally, the court rejected Constantine’s claim that counsel improperly advised him not to testify. The court found that advising Constantine about the risks of cross-examination was not objectively unreasonable. It also found that the trial record showed Constantine chose not to testify after the court fully informed him of his right to testify.

Prosecutorial-Misconduct Claims

Constantine alleged that the Government elicited false testimony, presented false evidence, selectively prosecuted him, and unlawfully wiretapped him. The court found that he had not supported these claims with competent evidence. It also held that the claims were procedurally defaulted because Constantine had not raised them on direct appeal.

Disposition

The court denied Constantine’s motion in its entirety without an evidentiary hearing. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Constantine had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.