Williams v. United States

Background

Steven Williams filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asking the court to vacate his conviction or set aside his 150-month prison sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute or possess with the intent to distribute heroin and cocaine. The jury acquitted him of money laundering. He was sentenced to 150 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release.

The government’s trial evidence included testimony from three cooperating witnesses. Only Patrick Edwards testified about Williams’s personal involvement in the New York part of the conspiracy. On direct appeal, Williams challenged the government’s references to truth-telling requirements in the witnesses’ cooperation agreements and statements during closing argument. In a prior related proceeding, the appeals court rejected those arguments.

Legal standard

To obtain relief under Section 2255, a federal prisoner must show that the sentence violated federal law or the Constitution, that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence exceeded the legal maximum, or that the sentence was otherwise subject to collateral attack. For ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the alleged errors created a reasonable probability of a different result.

Court’s analysis

Williams raised five groups of ineffective-assistance claims:

1. Trial strategy and cooperating witnesses. Williams argued that counsel improperly attacked Edwards’s credibility in opening statements, failed to object promptly to the government’s references to truth-telling provisions, and said during closing argument that counsel would not attack the credibility of the other two cooperating witnesses. The court found that challenging Edwards’s credibility was a reasonable strategy because Edwards was the only cooperating witness who directly testified about Williams’s involvement. The court also found that counsel did attack the other witnesses’ credibility by pointing to their incentive to please the government. As to the government’s alleged improper vouching, the court held that the related issue had already been rejected on direct appeal and therefore could not support this ineffective-assistance claim.

2. Evidence about Williams’s 2015 detention and release. Williams argued that counsel should have objected to a limiting instruction that did not tell the jury why he was not charged in 2015. The court found counsel’s decision reasonable. The evidence was admitted only to show that Williams knew law enforcement was investigating him, while the reasons the government did not bring charges were treated as inadmissible and potentially confusing to the jury.

3. Suppression motion and drug quantity. Williams argued that counsel should have filed a suppression motion or challenged the weight of drugs taken from Edwards. The court explained that a suppression motion challenges evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches or seizures. The petition did not identify any such violation. The court understood the allegation to concern heroin that Williams and Edwards delivered to a confidential law-enforcement source, who weighed it, and found counsel’s decision not to file a suppression motion reasonable.

4. Private investigator. Williams argued that counsel failed to use requested funds to hire a private investigator. The court found that he did not explain what the investigator would have discovered or how the investigation could have changed the result. The court also noted that the government had produced material that could help the defense or be used to cross-examine its witnesses, and that counsel conducted extensive cross-examinations.

5. Written motion for acquittal. Williams argued that counsel should have filed a written motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. Counsel had made an oral Rule 29 motion before jury deliberations, and the court reserved decision. The later entry of the guilty judgment effectively denied that motion. The court found no reasonable probability that a written motion would have produced a different result. Williams’s acquittal on the separate money-laundering count did not undermine the jury’s finding that the government proved the drug-conspiracy charge.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the Section 2255 petition. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion in this civil case and the motion in the related criminal case.