## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1576 D ERR I CK G ARDNER, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C577

—Ronal d A . G uzmán, Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 29, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 25, 2012

Befo re B AUER, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. A federa l j ury convi cted Der r i ckGa r dn er of po ss es si o n o fa fi r ea r m b y a fel o n, prohibi ted by18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) , afterpoli ce fri ske d hi m and dis cove re d a pi sto l i nsi de h is coa t pock et. Gar dne r i ns i st ed th at th e po l i ce ha d pl an te d the gun on hi m ; thi s l ed hi s l aw yerto bel i eve thathe c oul d not ar gue that the fi re ar m was the f rui t o fa suspi ci onl ess sea rch. In thi s co l l ate ra l proce edi ng und er28 U
. S. C. § 2 255,2 N o. 10

- 1576 Gardner a rgues that hi s t ri al c ou nselr endered i neffecti v e a s s i s t a nc e i n t wo r e s pe c t s : ( 1 ) b y r e fus i ng t o m ove to su p p re ss th e fire ar m as th e pr od u c t o f an u n re as on ab le se ar c h ; an d (2) b y n otex p lain in g t o G a r d n e r t h at h is tes ti m ony at a supp re ssi on hear i ng coul d no t be us ed at t r i a l a s e v i de nc e o fh i s g ui l t
. S ee S i m m o ns v . U nited Sta tes , 390 U .S. 3 7 7, 3 9 4 (19 68 ). Th e p ar tie s a gr ee th at if th e d istri ct cou rt i nc orrectly de term ined that cou ns el’ s per f o r m an ce was a dequa te , a n e vi den ti ar y he ar i ng w oul d be nece ssa ryto deter m i ne pre j u d ice
. S ee St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 668, 687 (1984 ). W e rej ec t G ar dn er ’ s Si m m ons ar gum ent, but w e a gr ee w i th hi s fi rs t point. Gardner’ s insi ste nce that the pol i ce pla nted the gun on hi m nei therj u sti fi ed norco m pel l ed counsel to re f ra i n f ro m chal l enging the sea rch that prod uc ed the w eap on. W e t hu s reverse th e d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on a nd r em and fo r the c ourtto determ i ne wh ether co uns el ’ s f ai l ur e to move to s uppr es s th e wea po n pr ej ud iced Ga rd ne r.

I InO c to b er 20 02 t w o p olic e offic er s re sp on d ed t o a rad io dispat ch r epor ti ng an “ass aul t i n prog re ss” by a “ m an with a gun” at unit 407 of a Ch i cago apart m en t b uil ding. A ccor ding to the o ffi cer s’ te sti m ony a t t ri al, wh en the y ar r i v e d th e y s a w Ga r d n e r j u s t o u t s i d e a n e n t r a n c e t o t he bui l ding, about 50 fee t fr om thei r car . Gardner approached th em, an d o ne o ffi ce r as k ed hi m wher e he was c o m i ng fro m . H e re sp on d ed “ 4 0 7 ” an d vo lu n ta rily p lac ed h is ha nds o n the s qu ad c ar f o r a pa t- do wn se ar ch

. TheN o. 10

- 1576 3 offic er s q u ick ly fou n d a n i n e - m illim et er p ist ol in h is j a c k e tp o c k e ta n d a r r e s t e d h i m. The a cc o unttha t Gar dne r e ven tual l y g av e o fthe e nc o u n t e r b o r e n o r e s e mb l a n ce to t h a to fth e o ffi c e r s . He fl at l y de ni ed th athe o ffer ed to b e se ar ch ed. Ins te ad, he sa i d, he was “ m i nd in ghi s o wn bus i ne ss ” o ut si de o fthe a pa r t men t b ui l di ng whe n the o ffi c e rs appr o a c he d him an d o r der ed him to s ubmi t to a s ea r ch

. I n a ddi ti o n, Gardner “ dispute[ d] that he w as actuall y c arry i ng a gu n, or th at th e o ffice r re tr iev ed a gu n from h is p er so n .” W hat Gar dn erco uld not d eny, however, was the f act th a th e h a d s e v e r a l p r i o r fe l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s a tth e t i me o fthe e nc o unt erwhenhe was a l l eg edl y c ar ryin gthe gun. Thi s l ed to hi s indi ctm ent on one co unt ofposs ess i on ofa fi re ar m b y a fel on. 18 U
. S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1)
. Gardner want ed to ch al l en g e th e se ar ch th atpr o duce d the g un, b ut hi s fi rs t appoint ed counsel re fused to fi l e a m oti on to supp re ss. Fr ustr ate d, Gardner him se lffi l ed a pro se m oti on that s ought to supp re ss “al l e vid en ce a nd st ate
m en ts” stem m ing from the fri sk. A c cord ing to G ard ne r, who i s Afr i ca n- Am er i ca n, the o ffi ce r s k ne w f r o m the ra d io d isp at c h th at th e ass aila n t w as a bl a c k m a le w eig hi ng 16 5 pounds and w i th a hei ght o f5' 7"

. Because G ar d n er w eig h s 2 25 p ou n d s a n d i s 6 ' 2" , he arg u ed in hi s pro se su b m iss ion th at th e po lice lac k e d rea so n ab le su sp ici on to d etain an d frisk him un d er Ter ry v. O hio , 392 U
. S. 1 ( 1968 )
. Gardner’ s co unselbel iev ed that Gardner’ s m oti on co uld notsucce ed unle ss Gardner w as prepar ed to adm i t under oath t h at he had po s s e s s e d the s e i z e d gun . Be c a us e o fthi s c o nfl i ct,4 N o. 10

- 1576 counselm ove d to w i thdr aw . The di str i ct c ourtgr anted the m oti on, st ruck Gardner’ s pro se m oti on, and appoi nted G ar d n er n ew co u n se l. N ew c o uns ela l so r efus ed to move t o s uppr es s th e gun, but he di d not t ryto withdraw. A s a r esul t, Gardner ac cus ed hi m o fpr o vi di ngi ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce a nd as k ed th e co ur t to di smi ss hi m , b utthe c o ur t r efus ed. The tr i alj ud ge l ate r st at ed at a pre tr i alco nfe re nce that “ you cannot fi l e a m oti on t o supp re ss an i tem ta ken fro m you w hi l e a t the sa m e t i m e denyi ng tha t t h e i tem was t a k e n fr o m y o u . I t ’ s j u s tth a ts i mpl e . . . . An d t wo at to r ne y s ha ve t o l d y o u tha t. ” L atera t th e pr et r i alc o nfer en c e, Gardner r ei ter ate d that he was not car ry i ng a gun w he n the p o l i c e s e a r c he d h i m, s a y i ng“ Ia i n’ tn e ver se en th e w ea p on .” Aft era t wo- dayt r i ala t whi chthe de fen se c al l ed no w i tnesses, Gardner w as convi cted. Bef or e s entencing, he fi l ed a pro se m o ti o n f o r a new triali n whi chhe ar gu ed th at t h e c ou rth ad n ev er p ro p er ly ru led on h is m oti on t o supp re ss. A t s entencing the pro secuto r re sp on d ed , w ith ou t d isa gr ee m en t fro m G ar d n er ’s c ou n se l, th ati fGa r dne r di d “ no t h ave a po ss es so r y i nt er es t i n the f i re a r m, the n he ha s no F o ur th Am e nd men t i nt e r e s t s t o vi nd i cate
. ” Counsela dd ed that he had r epeate dlydi scus se d “ th i s sa m e i ss ue ” wi thGa r dne r, to n o a va i l

. The co ur t d en i ed Gar dne r ’ s m o ti o n f o r s ev er alr ea so ns : the m oti on had notbee n sign ed , fi l ed by counsel, o r ser ved up on the pro secuti on; and G ar dn er ’ s deni alo fposs ess i on d ive st ed h im of “s ta n d in g.” F o l l o wi nga s ucc es sful a p pea l b as ed o n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Palad i no , 40 1 F
. 3d 471, 483- 85 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , thatr esul tedN o. 10

- 1576 5 i n a r educti on o fhi s pri so n t erm to 15 ye ar s, Gardner m ove d under § 2255 to vacat e hi s convi cti on. H e argued that hi s l aw yer’ s r efusalto fi l e a suppress i on m oti on const i tuted i neffecti ve ass i stan ce b ecause i t was bas ed o n the mis t a k e n b e l i e ftha tthe g unc o ul d n o tb e s up p re ss ed as lon g a s G ar d n er d isp u te d p os se ss i o n . Th is w as wrong, Gardner ar gued, bec ause the pol i ce c l ai m ed to have f ound the gun duri ng a searc h o f h is poc ket, o ver whi chhe ha d a n e xpe ct at i o n o fpr i va cy . And tha t ex p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y , G ar d n er co n tin u ed , gav e h im gr ounds to chal l enge the s ear ch r ega rdl ess ofwh ether he a dm i tt ed o r de ni ed po ss es si o n o fthe g un. I n an a ffidavi t a tta ched to the § 22 55 m oti on, Gardner also ackn ow ledge d f or th e first ti m e tha t the officers did r eco ve r a gun fro m hi s pock et. H e e xplai ned that he had cont est ed posse ssi on in hi s m oti on t o supp re ss o nl y b e c a us e h e h a d b el i eve d tha th i s a s s e r t i o ns a ta s up press i on hea ring had to r em ai n consi ste nt with hi s no tgu ilty p lea or th ey w ou ld be u se d ag a i n s t h i m attria l. H e had notkno w n otherwis e, Gardner sai d, because co unsel had no t adv i se d hi m o fthe r ul e i n Si m m ons , 39 0 U .S. at 3 9 4. G ar d n er als o re ite ra te d in t h e a ffid av it that he neve r tol d the o ffi cer s that he had v isi ted apar tm en t 40 7 o r v o l unt ee r ed f o r a pa t- d ow n; i ns te ad, he el abor ate d, an o ffi cerr an up to hi m and for c ed hi m to th e sq u ad car forthe p at-d ow n sea rch

. Th e govern m en t’s r es po ns e i nc l ude d a n a ffi dav i t f r o m Ga r dne r ’ s se co nd counsel, wh o sai d that he di d not r ecal l advi si ng Gardner ofthe Sim m o ns r ul e, b uttha t he d id r emembert el l i ng Gardner that i fhe t es tifie d fa l sel y a t a ny hea ring o r at tr i al, hi s g ui del i ne s i m p risonmentr an g e co ul d b e i ncre ase d by t w o l eve l s.6 N o. 10

- 1576 The dis tr i ct c ourtdenied t h e § 22 55 m oti on. I t r ule d that counselwas not i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to m ove to supp re ss because G ar dn er ’ s pos i ti on be f or e t ri althat the pol i ce had pl anted a gun on him m ad e any e ff or t t o s u p p r e ss th e gun a “non starter.” Th e cou rt then de term i ned that counselwas not i neffec tiv e forf ai l i ng to m enti on the Sim m o ns ru le b ec au se G ar d n e r n ev er to ld co uns eltha t he ha d i n f ac t po ss es se d the g un. W i th o ut an as ser ti on that G ar d n erwas prepar ed to adm i t pos ses sio n to h is law ye r, th e c o u rtrea so n ed , th e la w ye r c ou ld not be f aul ted f orf ailin g to advi se Gardner that s uch ana dm i ss i o n c o ul d b e m ade a t a su ppr es si o n h ea r i ng w ith ou t fe ar t h at th e a d m iss ion w ou ld th en be u sa b le at tr i alas ev i dence ofhi s guil t. W e i ss ue d a c er ti fi ca te o fa ppeal ab i l i tyo n the questi on wh etherGardner “r ecei ved i neffecti ve ass i stance w hen hi s t ri alcou n se l r efused to fi l e a m oti on t o supp re ss on hi s be hal fand did notexpl ai n to Gardner that any t est i m ony he pro vi ded a t a s up press i on h ea rin g c ou ld n otbe u se d ag ain st h im attria l.”

II W i thi n the gener ali ssue ofthe effecti venes s o f co uns el, G ardne r f o cus es o n t wo ins ta nc es o fde fi ci en t perf or m ance: fi rs t, co unsel ’ s r efus al to m ove to suppress the gun that the p ol i ce a l l ege dlyextr acte d fr om hi s pock et, an d s ec o nd, c o uns el ’ s f ai l ur e to a dvi se Ga r dne r o fthe Sim m o ns r ul e. The gov er nm en t pr i m ar i l y a ddr es se s th e se c on d iss u e a n d ta ke s t h e p os itio n th atth e firs t is outsi de the sco pe ofthe cer ti fi cate
. W e r ej ect the l at terN o. 10

- 1576 7

con ten tion. T he certificate of ap p ealabili ty itselfre fers to tw o potenti also urces o fincom petence

— the r efu sa l to fi l e a m o ti o n a ndf ail ure to rend er Si m m ons advi ce

— not on e . In a ddi t i o n, a c e r t i fi c a t e b a s e d o n i ne ffe cti ve as sis ta n c e o f co u n se l brin gs u p for a p p ella te rev iew all ac ti o ns o fc o uns eltha t th e pet i ti o ne r a ddr es se d i n the d ist ric t c ou rt
. St e ve ns v. M cBr i de, 48 9 F
. 3d 883, 89 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07) ( ci ti ng P eop les v. U nit e d S ta tes , 40 3 F
. 3d 844, 84 8 (7th C i r. 20 05) )
. The go ver nm ent doe s no t co ntest that G ar dn err ai sed bo th gr ounds ofi neffecti ve ass i sta n c e in h is § 22 55 m o t i o n , a n d so bo th are p ro p er ly bef or e us. W e begin w i th G ar d ner’ s Si m m ons ar gum ent, wh i ch we c o nc l ude do es no t su pport a fi ndi ngo fde fi ci en t perf or m ance. Gardner ar gues that com petent counsel wou l d ha ve s ur m i se d tha t he de ni ed po ss es si o n f o r the sol e r eas on that he did notkno w that Si m m o ns p re vents the g ove rnm ent fro m usi ng adm i ssion s re cei ved ata su pp r e s s i o n he a r i nga s e v i de nc e o fg ui l ta tt r i a l

. Ga r dn er ur g es tha t th e r i g htc r ea te d i n Si m m ons ha s m ea ni ng onl y i fdefen d an ts ar e a w ar e o fi t, and that l ay defendants wil l nothave the necessar y know l edge unl es s the lawy erdi sc us se s th e po i nt
. Butthe se a r g um en ts assum e a duty t o disc uss Sim m o ns eve n w hen coun selhas no r eas on t o disb el i eve a cl i ent’ s deni alo f p os se ss ion . G ar d n er d oe s n o t p oin t t o a n y e vid en c e in the r eco rd co ntra dict i ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi n d i ng tha t Gardner him sel fdi d not t el l co unselthathe pos ses sed the gun, and so counselhad no r eas on t o d elve i nto a se r i es o f“ whati f’ s” b as ed o n h y po th eti ca l po ss es si o n. A lth ou gh a sa vv y c rim in al d efe n s e l a w ye r m igh t w ell8 N o. 10

- 1576 questi on a cl i ent’ s deni alo fposs ess i on in thi s type o f pr o ce eding, we ar e no t pr epa r ed to ho l d tha t a co m pet en t l aw yerm ust a l w ays as sum e th at h ercl i ents l i e when they deny posse ssi on. S ee E m m ett v . K elly, 474 F. 3d 154, 168 ( 4th Ci r. 20 07) (r uling tha t a co m petent defe nse co uns elneed not “ pr es um e th athi s cl i en t
. . . i s be i ng del ib er ate l y m i sl eadi ng” b ecause o ther w i se counsel w oul d be in “an i m possibl e pos i ti on” ofbein g “u n able to tru st th e w ord of t he c li en t .
. . . ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Aus m us , 774 F
. 2 d 72 2 , 7 2 7( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( “ Pr o fe s s i o na l s t a nd a r ds do not re quir e co unselto di sbel i eve a cl i ent a nd check w i th othe r sour ces unle ss counsel has a basis for such d isbeli ef. ”). W e no w re tu r n t o Ga r dne r ’ s fi r sti ss ue

— whethe r c o unse l r e nd e r e d c o ns t i t ut i o na l l y de fi c i e ntp e r f o r mance w hen, r el yi ng o n a m isu nd er sta nd i ng o fthe l aw , he r efused to m ove to suppress the re sul ts ofGardner’ s frisk

. Se e Joh nso n v . U nited Sta tes , 604 F.3d 1016 , 1019-21 (7th Cir. 20 10 ); Bynum v. Lem m on , 56 0 F
. 3d 678, 68 4- 85 ( 7th C ir. 20 09 ); U nite d State s v. Spence, 45 0 F
. 3d 691, 69 4- 95 (7th C ir. 2006). Gar dne r ’ s at to r ne y s, the pr o se cut o r, a nd ev en th e d ist ric t c ou r t a l l be liev ed th at h e h ad to ad m it to actualposs ess i on o fthe gun to ch alle nge i ts sei zure . Ye t no o ne c i te d a c as e th ats uppo r ts thi s pr i nc i pl e. The dist ri ct cour t re fer red to U nite d State s v. C olón O sori o , 36 0 F. 3d 48, 52 ( 1stCi r. 20 04) , but i n that case the Fi rs t Cir cui t dec lined to add ress w he th er a distr ict court co rr ec tly de ni ed a m o ti o n t o s uppr es s wher e th e defen dan t ha d a r g ue d tha t th e po l i ce pl an te d the fi r ea r m he w anted to excl ud e.N o. 10

- 1576 9 I n f ac t, no s uchc as e co ul d ha ve b ee n f o und. A defen dan t w ho wishe s t o bring a Four th A m endm ent c hal l enge need onl y s how thathe ha d a l egi ti m ate expecta ti on o f p riv ac y in th e a re a s ea rc h ed

. M inn eso t a v . C a rter, 52 5 U .S. 83 , 87-8 8 (1 99 8); U nited Sta tes v. C row der, 588 F
. 3d 929, 934 ( 7th C ir . 2009); U nited Sta tes v. A lexa nd er, 57 3 F
. 3d 46 5, 47 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Yang, 47 8 F
. 3d 832, 83 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. As Ga r dne r has ar g ue d thr o ug ho ut thi s c a s e , a nd a s the g o v e r nme ntc o nc e de s , h e h a d a re aso nabl e e xpectati on o f pri vacyi n hi s o w n pers on a n d clo th in g. E .g ., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gr ay, 4 9 1 F
. 3 d 1 3 8 , 1 46 n.3 (4th C ir. 2007). T hu s, he certainly had the nec essary pri vacyi nter estto sup porta chal l enge to the offi cer s’ patdo wn se ar cho f h is p o ck et s as unc o ns ti tu ti o na l o n the gr ound that the o ffi cer s l acked r eas onabl e s uspici on t o f r i skhi m . And i fthe fr i sk w as unco ns ti tu ti o na l, the n the offi cer s’ di sc overyo fthe gun, wh i ch theysa y r esul ted f ro m the f ri sk, w oul d hav e been bar re d a t tria l. Se e U nited St a t e s v. T

yler, 512 F.3d 405 , 412 (7th C ir. 2008); U nite d State s v. Sw if

t, 220 F.3d 502 , 506-07 (7th C ir. 2000). The go ver nm ent c ounter s that a ny eff or t t o supp re ss the gun w oul d have n on et h ele ss failed because Gardner’ s insi ste nce that he did notp os se ss a gun neces sar i l y m eans that the s ear ch w as not the “but- f or ” cause o f the dis c overyo fthe gun. S ee H uds on v. M i ch igan , 54 7 U
. S. 58 6, 59 2 ( 2006 ) ( sta ti n g that but- f orcausa ti on i s a “n eces sary . . . cond iti on for sup p ression” ). The r efo r e, the gov er nm en t m aintains, the gun coul d not hav e be en supp re ssed ev en i fthe sea rch w as unlawful

. But an unlawfulse ar ch does “cause ” the di sco ver y of a pl anted gu n if th e s ea rc h en ab led th e p olic e t o p lan t it . A10 N o. 10

- 1576 defen dan t se ek i ngt o have evi den ce s uppr es se d a s th e f rui t o fan i l l ega l se ar ch need o nl y e stabl i sh a “f actual n ex u s b et w ee n th e illeg alit y a n d th e c h alle n ge d ev id en c e.” U nite d State s v. Ie nco , 18 2 F
. 3d 51 7, 52 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( ci ti ng U nite d State s v. Kandik, 633 F. 2d 1334, 133 5 (9th Cir
. 1980 ) ) ; se e al so U nite d State s v. M arasco , 48 7 F
. 3d 543, 547 (8th Cir. 2007). Gardner e asily c oul d have s ati sfi ed th atb urd enb y po i nt i ngt o the po l i ce r epo r ts a ss er ting th at th e o ffice rs fou n d a gu n in h is p oc ke t. Cf

. U nited St at e s v. Si ngl e t on , 98 7 F
. 2d 1444, 14 49 ( 9th Ci r. 19 93) ( expla i ni ng t hat co urts m ust l oo k a t e vi dence fro m bo th si des wh en dete rm i ni ng w hetherdefendant has expectati on o fpri vacy )
. H e nee d n ot confe ss und ero ath t o posse ss i o n t o s ho w a “ f ac tu alne xus . ” F ur therm o r e, i fthe b od y fris k w as u n c on st itu tio n al, th en th e o ffice rs w ou ld no t ha ve b ee n pe r m i tt ed to t es ti fy abo uta ny th i ng

— i n c l u d i n gth e g un

— t h at th ey alleg ed ly fou n d as a re su lt ofi t. S ee Wo ng Su n v . U nited Sta tes , 37 1 U.S
. 47 1, 48 5 (19 63 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Acox , 5 95 F. 3d 729, 73 3 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10)
. W i thout a f oundati on f orhow the pol i ce obtai ned the gun, the g ove rn m ent woul d not hav e be en abl e to adm i t the gun at tr i al, and the case agai nst Ga r dn e r wo ul d h a v e c o l l a ps e d. If w e w er e t o a d op t t h e g ov er n m en t’s vie w , a defe nd ant who tr uthful l y c onte nd s that pol i ce s topped hi m unl aw fully a nd pl an ted a gun on hi m duri ng a su spi ci o nl es s se ar chwoul d be abl e to c ha l l en g e th e sea rch on ly by perj uri ng hi m sel fata supp re ssi on h ea rin g b y fa lse l y s t a t i n g t h at h e p os se ss ed th e g u n . I t shoul d go w i thout say i ng, however, t h at perj ury i s nev er r e qu i re d

— i t i s no t e ven per m i tte d. Such l i es coul d al soN o. 10

- 1576 11 expose a defendant to i m p ea c h m ent a t t ri ali fhe l ate r t r uthful l y de ni e d po s s e s s i o n. S ee U nite d State s v. Salvucci, 44 8 U .S. 83 , 93-9 4 & n .8 (19 80 ); Rei ne r tv. La rki ns , 37 9 F. 3d 76, 96 n. 5 ( 3d Cir

. 20 04); G uen ther v . H o lm green , 73 8 F.2d 879 , 886 n.7 (7th C ir. 1984). T o a v o id perjury and i m peachm ent, the defe nd ant’ s o nl y a l ternati ve w oul d be t o f or fei t a chal l enge to the s ear ch and re st hi s ho pes o n the j ur y ’ s be l i ev i nghi s te st i m o ny th at th e po l i ce p l a n t e d a g u n . T h e l a w i s n o tth a th a r s h

. A d e fen dant w i th two l egi ti m ate d efe nses to a pos ses si on char ge i s no t f o r ce d t o pi ckj us t o ne

— i nd eed, he i s e n titl ed to prese nt i nconsi ste nt posi ti ons i fhe wis hes. S ee M a thew s v. U nited Sta tes, 48 5 U
. S. 58, 64- 66 ( 1988 ) ; se e a l so Johns on , 60 4 F
. 3d at 1021 ( noti ng no in h erent c onfl i ct between defense that pol i ce s ear ch ofcarvi olated F o ur thAm en dm en t an d de fense tha t defen dan t ha d no kn ow led ge o fd ru gs fou n d in c ar ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M oran , 50 3 F.3d 1135, 11 46- 47 ( 10th Cir
. 20 07) ( expla i ni ng tha t to pr o ve po sse ss i o n o ffi r ea r m b y fel o n g o ve r nm en t m us t prov e tha t po ssess ion w as volun tary). W e a l so rej ect the pos sibi l i ty that counsel ’ s f ai l ure to m ove to suppress was base d on a re aso nabl e t ri al str ate gy ra therthan a m i sapprehensi on o fl aw . S ee St r i ck

l and, 466 U .S. at 6 89 . G ar d n er ’s s ec on d law y e r s t a te d in h is a f f i d a vit th at h e a d vis ed G ar d n er ag ain st fals ely tes ti fyi ng atany heari ng ( perfectly r eas onabl e a dvic e i n i sol ati on)
. The di str i ct c ourtappear ed t o i nfe r f ro m thi s s tat em ent that cou nseldeci ded ag ai nst m oving to supp re ss the gun as a m att er of prudence beca use Gardner’s denia l o fposs ess i on m i ght b e deem ed perj uri ous, l eadi ng to an incre ase i n hi s o ffen se l eve l at12 N o. 10

- 1576 sente nci ng f oro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce. S ee U
. S. S. G. § 3 C1. 1. W e rej ec t th i s i nfer en ce , whi che ve n the g o ve r nm en t does not em bra c e, b ec ause i t i s co ntra dict ed by the r est of the re cor d. The tr i al j ud ge tw i ce tol d Gar dn er in th e p resen ce of his secon d cou ns el th at both of h is a t torneys had cor re ctl y a dvis ed hi m thathe was f orbidd en f ro m a sk ing t o supp re ss the gun w hi l e denyi ng tha t th e po l i ce f o und i t o n h i m a nd the n t o o ki t. The s ec o nd ti m e, co unselco nfi rm ed that he ha d repeate dlyadvi sed G ard ne r on this “issu e.” W e thu s con clud e tha t G ard ne r’s l aw yers abst ai ned fr om m oving to suppress bec ause they thought, i ncor re c tl y, thatthe l aw pro hibi ted the m f r o m do i ngs o a bsent a c o nfes si o n t o po ss es si o n, a nd not because i t was prudent. Counsel ’ s be l i efthatthe l aw req u ire d G ar dn erto c o nfe s s t o p o s s e s s i o n, wh i c h the di str i c tc o ur te c ho e d, was a mis appr eh en si o n o fl aw tha t, a s i n Johns on , 60 4 F
. 3 d a t1 0 1 9

- 2 1 , p r e vente d c o un s e l fr o m s e e k i ngt o s up pr es s cr i ti ca l ev i den ce . The o nl y r emai ni ngque st i o n, wh i c h th e g o v e r n me n td o e s n o td i s cus s bu twh i c h we con side r i m p ortan t enou gh to rai se, is w he th er cou ns el’ s perf or m ance i s s om ehow excused beca u se the di str i ct c o u r t en d or se d th e e rro r. W e t h in k t h at a b lan ke t ru le to thi s e ffect

— i.e. , no m att erhow egr egi ous t h e d i str i ct cour t’ s e rr or, co unselhas no ind ependent obl i gat i on to p er for m co m p et en tly

— w oul d be inc onsis tent w i th th e g ua r an te e o fe ffec ti ve a ss i stance of co uns eltha t th e Si xth A m endm ent a ssur es and that St r i ck l andel aborat es. U n d er th a t r eg im e, co u n se l, n otth e c ou rt, i s re sp on sib le f o r pr o te ct i ngthe i nt er es ts o fthe a ccu sed , a nd i t i s co unse l ’ s p e r f o r man c e tha tmus tb e a s s e s s e d obj e c t i v e l y.N o. 10

- 1576 13 Mo r e o v e r, w e kn o w f r o m B ow le s v. R uss el l, 551 U
. S. 205 ( 2007 ) , thatfund am entalm i sta kes bythe dist ric t c o u r t( i n th a tc a s e , b e l i e v i n gth a ti tco u l d e x t e n d th e t i me in w h i c h to file a c ivil ap p ea l) d o n otn ec es sa rily ex cus e co uns el ’ s ac ti o ns . I n B o w les, the er ro r could not be o ver loo ke d because i t had j uri sdic ti onalsi gni fi cance. H er e, i t do es no t, b ut i fc o uns elha d unde r st o o d the l aw pro perl y an d fi l ed the properm oti on, the dist ri ct co ur t m i g htha ve r eal ized tha t i t ne ede d t o r ev i si t th e gov er ni ng case s and the er ro r w oul d hav e been n ipp ed i n th e bud. A ny er ro r that the di str i ct c ourtm ade with re spect to the s up press i on m oti on co u ld have bee n c u re d on ap p ea l. Because th e d i str i ct c ourtf ound itunnecess ar y t o reach the sec ond pa rt of th e i n e ffectiven ess inq uiry

— prej ud i ce

— we c anno t r es o l ve the c as e at thi s st ag e. I nstead , the p rop er step i s to rem an d fo r a n ev iden tiary hear i ng o n prej ud i ce. Thi s wil l r equi re an a sse ssm ent o f the like li hood thata m oti on t o supp re ss w oul d have been gr anted. W e do not re gar d the outcom e o fthat i n q u i r y a s i n e v i t ab l e o n e wa y o r th e ot he r . A s f a r a s we can tellat t his p oint, althou gh this i s not a ca se w he re th e m oti on t o supp re ss w oul d cer tai nl y hav e be en success ful but f orco unsel ’s bl und er, se e O w ens v. U nited S t a tes , 3 8 7F
. 3 d 6 0 7, 6 0 7

- 0 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , Ga r dn er m i ght ha ve preva i l ed, se e Johns on , 60 4 F. 3d at 1020

- 21; se e al so G e n try v . Sevier, 59 7 F
. 3d 838, 85 1- 52 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( fi ndi ngde fi ci en t per f or m an ce whenr ec o r d g av e no i nd i cati on th at t h e m oti on t o supp re ss cri ti calev i dence th at cou ns e l refused to fil e w ou ld h ave be en fut il e). Gar dne r ’ s al l eg at i o ns th at th e po l i ce ac co st ed him wi th

-14 N o. 10

- 1576

ou t p ro vo c at ion, cou p led w ith th e e v i d en c e o f h is physi caldi ssi m i l ar i ty to the a rm ed ass ai l ant des cribed bythe di spa tc he r, c o ul d ha ve r es ul te d i n a r ul i ngtha t th e pat- dow n sea rch v iolated the Four th A m endm ent. S ee Ie nco , 18 2 F
. 3d at 523 -24 . T he go ver nm ent m ay tr y t o i m peach Ga rd ner’ s cr edibi l i ty, but ofco urse cr edibi l i ty det er m i na ti o ns a r e f o r the d istr i ctc o ur t to make i n the firs t in st an c e. Se e, e . g. , Fo rm el l a v. U
. S. D ep’ tof La b or, 628 F.3d 381, 391 (7th Cir. 2010). A ccor dingl y, we R EVERSE the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on a nd R EMA ND f o r a n e vi den tiary he ar i ngt o de te r m i ne w hetherco unsel ’ s f ai l ure to fi l e a supp re ssi on m oti on pr ej udi ce d Ga r dne r a nd f o r a ny o th erpr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

5- 25- 12