Momplaisir v. Capra

Background

Eddy Momplaisir filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his criminal conviction and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial misconduct. The district court previously dismissed his claims as procedurally barred or lacking merit.

The Second Circuit later affirmed in part, vacated in part, and sent the case back. It held that three ineffective-assistance claims were not barred by New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10(2)(c), dismissed two of those claims as meritless, and found that the third claim could have merit. That claim alleged that trial counsel failed to investigate witnesses who would testify about a romantic relationship between Momplaisir and the complainant.

Ineffective-Assistance Claim

The court relied on its 2019 order, which held that Momplaisir’s allegations, even if accepted as true, did not establish ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington. The court determined that counsel’s decisions about which witnesses to call fell within the broad range of reasonable professional assistance. Momplaisir had stated that counsel and an investigator tried to contact witnesses but were hindered by difficulty obtaining information from the relevant community.

The court also stated that the proposed testimony was unlikely to show prejudice. A defense witness had already provided nearly all of the facts Momplaisir said the other witnesses would provide, except for testimony about seeing the complainant in Momplaisir’s bedroom. Considering the trial record and the strength of the prosecution’s case, the court concluded that this additional detail would not have changed the result.

The court rejected Momplaisir’s argument that counsel could have subpoenaed the witnesses and treated them as hostile if necessary. It explained that the question was whether counsel’s decision not to call them was deficient, not whether counsel could have called them. The court found that counsel knew what the proposed witnesses would say and made a reasonable, informed decision not to call them.

Reconsideration and Disposition

The court denied Momplaisir’s request for an evidentiary hearing because he was not entitled to federal relief. It also denied his motion for reconsideration. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, such a motion generally must be served within 14 days after the original decision. The court said Momplaisir filed his motion nearly two years after the 2019 order and gave no explanation for the delay. The court further held that, even if the motion had been timely, Momplaisir had identified no overlooked law or facts supporting reconsideration.

The court’s conclusion states that both Momplaisir’s § 2254 ineffective-assistance claim and his motion for reconsideration of the 2019 order were denied.