Stevenson v. United States

Background

Eric Stevenson, who had been a member of the New York State Assembly, was convicted by a jury on four federal bribery-related counts. The charges arose from allegations that he accepted four bribes totaling $22,000 from businessmen seeking help with an adult day care center and related legislation. The court sentenced him to an aggregate 36-month prison term and ordered forfeiture of a substitute asset from his pension fund.

On direct appeal, Stevenson challenged the sentencing-guidelines calculation, forfeiture procedure, denial of a trial delay, an evidentiary ruling, the sufficiency of the evidence, and counsel’s failure to raise entrapment. The Court of Appeals rejected all but the last argument. It stated that an ineffective-assistance claim was generally better presented in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which Stevenson later filed without a lawyer.

Claims and Rulings

Stevenson argued in his § 2255 motion that the trial evidence was insufficient and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present an entrapment defense, object to the jury instruction defining “official act,” object to the forfeiture order, challenge the exclusion of evidence about the cooperating witness’s racial bias, present acquittal evidence, and challenge the denial of a trial delay. After the Government responded, Stevenson asked the court to stop considering the last three ineffective-assistance grounds. The court granted that request.

The court denied the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim as procedurally barred under the mandate rule. That rule prevents a district court from reconsidering issues that the Court of Appeals has already decided. The court also held that the mandate rule barred the ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel’s failure to object to the forfeiture order and to the jury instruction on “official act,” because the appeals court had already considered and rejected the underlying issues.

Entrapment Claim

The court considered the remaining ineffective-assistance claim on the merits. To prove ineffective assistance, Stevenson had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the error probably affected the result. The court explained that an entrapment defense requires government inducement and a lack of predisposition—that is, a lack of readiness to commit the crime.

The court found that the trial record did not support Stevenson’s lack-of-predisposition argument. It cited evidence that Stevenson warned the cooperating witness about recorders and tapped phones, asked whether the businessmen were preparing money for him, and said he wanted a “blessing in place.” The court also noted that it and the Court of Appeals had previously found the evidence of predisposition compelling. It concluded that an entrapment defense was highly unlikely to succeed and that counsel’s decision not to pursue it was a reasonable strategic choice. Stevenson therefore failed to satisfy either part of the ineffective-assistance test.

Disposition

The court denied Stevenson’s § 2255 petition. It stated that no certificate of appealability would issue, certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the Clerk to close case number 18-cv-1722, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Stevenson.