2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-19-2008 

# U SA v . B rown P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4741

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B r own" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1005. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1005T h e H o n o rab le W il li am H . Y o h n , U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 06- 4741

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L AM AR BR OWN, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cr - 00083) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges , a n d YOHN, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: J une 19, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . L amarB r ow n appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e a s ent ence o f l i f e i mp r i s o n me n tu n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I . W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. O n M arc h 6 , 2 0 0 2 , m u n ici p al po li ce o ff icers ex ec u ted a sea rch w arran t atB row n ’s re s id e n c e . T h e s e a rc h y ie ld e d a q u a n tity o f c ra c k c o c a in e a lo n g w ith m a ri ju a n a a n d c a s h . T he s ear ch w arr antw as acc om pani ed byan af fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e, w hi ch des cr i bed a contr ol l ed pur chas e of c r ack c ocai ne made bya conf i dent i al i nform antfr om B r ow n att he l at t er ’ s r es i dence fi ve day s ear l i er . T he af fi antw as O ffi cerJ ohn E vans , butthe contr ol l ed p u rc h a se w a s a c tu a llyo rg a n ize d b yL ieu ten a n t Jo h n G o sh e rt. O n A pr i l 10, 2002, a gr and j uryi ndi ct ed B r ow n on a cha r ge of unl aw ful p o s s e s s i o n o f

c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 (a)(1). Prior to tri al, B row n ’s att o rne y(L o ri U lr ich o f th e F ed era l Pu b li c D ef en d er’s O ffi ce) fi l ed a numberof m ot i ons ai m ed ats uppr es s i ng i nval i dl yobt ai ned evi dence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the pr etr i al m ot i ons w i t houtconduct i ng a hea r i ng. A f ter a tw o -d a ytrial, B ro w n w a s c o n v icte d , an d h e o b tain e d n e w c o u n se l (G e ra ld L or d) . O n J une 19, 2003, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B r ow n t o a t erm of l i fe3

im p riso n m e n t. S h o rtlyth e re a f ter , B ro w n f

iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l, bu t th e n v o lu n tar ily w i t hdr ew i t , s o w e di s m i s s ed the appe al on D ece m ber17, 2003. A ppar ent l y , B r ow n and L or d m ade as t r at egi c dec i s i on t hata col l at er al at t ack w oul d be more l i kel yt o s ucce ed. Sever al m ont hs l at er , on J ul y9, 2004, B r ow n fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , w h ich is a v e h icle f o r p riso n e rs in th e f

e d e ra l sy ste m to ar gue thatt hei rs ent ence i s s ubj ectt o col l at er al at t ack. B r ow n t her ei n al l eged thatU l r i ch w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ilin g to a d e q u a te ly su p p o rt h e r p re tr ia l s u p p re s s io n m o tio n s . A c c o rd in g to B ro w n , the c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t o n w h ich th e o f f ice rs h a d re lied in o b ta in in g th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t w a s lyin g , a n d U lr ic h in a d e q u a te ly in v e s tig a te d th is f a c t. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on February3, 2005, i n w hi ch var i ous m ember s of B r ow n’ s fami l y( w e i ncl ude i n t hi s gr oup B r ow n’ s m other , daught er , and form er gi r l fr i end) , B r ow n hi m s el f, U l r i ch, L t . G os her t , and anotheroffi cert es t i fi ed. T he part i es we r e t h e n d i r e c t e d t o f

i l e a d d i t i o n a l s u p p l e me n t s o v e rth e c o u r s e o f a n o t h e ry e a r . On O ctob er 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rten tered a m em o ran d u m an d o rde r de n y ing B row n ’s § 2255 m ot i on. B r ow n’ s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) . “W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on de novo bec aus e both t he per form ance and pr ej udi ce pr ongs of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s pr es entm i xed ques t i ons of l aw and fa ct . ” U

nited S tates v. C ross , 3 0 8 F . 3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).4

B ro w n a rg u e s th a t U lrich p ro v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e b e c a u se sh e f a iled to p lea d f a c ts in th e m o tio n to su p p re ss a n d th e m o tio n to c o m p e l d isc lo su re o f th e id e n tity of the conf

i dent i al i nform ant , fac t s t hatpurpor t edl yw oul d have r es ul t ed i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr ant i ng a hea r i ng pur s uantt o Franks v. D el aw are , 438 U . S. 154 ( 1978) , w hi ch perm i t s a def

endantt o chal l enge i n a hea r i ng the val i di t yof an a ffi davi ts uppor t i ng a sear ch w arr ant “w here the d efen dan tm akes a sub st anti al prel i m i naryshow i ng that a fal se s t at ementknow i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l y , orw i t h r eckl es s di s r egar d forthe truth, w as in c lu d e d b yth e a f

f ian t in th e w a rra n t af

f id a v it, a n d if

th e a lleg e d lyf

a lse sta tem e n t is nece s s aryt o t he fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. ” I d. at155- 56. I n t he cont extof a § 2255 c ol l at er al at t ack ba s ed on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , t he movantm us ts how ( 1) t hatcouns el ’ s per form ance fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s ta n d a rd o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s , Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 688 ( 1984) ; and (2 ) p re ju d ic e . I d. a t 6 9 2 . B o th p ro n g s m u s t b e m e t f o r t h e m o v a n t to s u c c e e d , C ar pent er v. V aughn , 2 9 6 F . 3 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), an d y et B row n sati sfies n eith er. W i t h r es pectt o t he per form ance pr ong, “ouranal y s i s m us tbegi n w i t h t he s t r ong p r e s u mp t i o n t h a tc o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o r ma n c e wa s r e a s o n a b l e . Th e d e f e n d a n tmu s to v e r c o me t he pr es um pt i on t hat , undert he ci r cumst ance s , the cha l l enged a ct i on m i ghtbe cons i der ed s ound t r i al s t r at egy . ” G e o rg e v . S ive ly , 254 F. 3d 438, 443 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . H er e, i ti s undi s put ed thatU l r i ch di d fi l e a m ot i on t o s uppr es s and a mot i on fora Fr anks hear i ng bas ed on the al l eged l i es of theW e d o n o t sug g est th at U lr ich w o u ld h av e p erf o rm ed b elow an o b

jecti v e stan d ard 1 of r eas onabl enes s even ha d t he off i cer s t al ked t o B r ow n’ s fami l ym ember s , for , gi ven fami l ym ember s ’ l i kel ybi as , a compet entat t orneym i ghts t i l l have l eftthem out as 5 a f f i a n t , Of f i c e rE v a n s , c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i ts u p p o r t i n g th e s e a r c h wa r r a n t . Br o wn ar gues t hatU l r i ch s houl d have done m or e bec aus e, acc or di ng t o hi m , no contr ol l ed buy evert ook pl ace athi s hous e on M ar ch 1, 2002, he t ol d U l r i ch thi s fac t , and U l r i ch nevert hel es s di d noti nt ervi ew B r ow n’ s fami l ym ember s w ho w oul d have c orr obor at ed B r o w n ’ s s t o r y. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatU l r i ch’ s not“doi ng m or e” doe s not cons t i tut e per form ance t hatfal l s bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s under Str i ckland . T h e test un d er Fr anks i s w hetherthe off i cer s “know i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l y , or w i t h r eckl es s di s r egar d fort he trut h, ” made one orm or e mat er i al fal s e s t at ement s i n t he w a rr a n t a f

f id a v it. S e e Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Ru

f u s Br o wn , 3 F. 3d 673, 677 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een i nform ant s ’ untruthful nes s and the af fi ant ’ s i nt ent i onal or r eckl es s fal s i t y , t he l at t erof w hi ch i s r equi r ed t o obt ai n a Fr anks hear i ng) . I tw as o b jecti v elyrea so n ab le fo r U lr ich to b eli ev e tha t add it ion al t esti m o n yfro m B row n ’s fami l ym ember s w oul d nothave c ontr i but ed t o herabi l i t yt o “make a s ubs t ant i al p re lim in a rysh o w in g ” a b o u t th e o f f ice rs’ sta te o f

m in d w h e n m a k in g th e ir a f f id a v it, es peci al l yw her e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatB r ow n’ s fami l ym ember s evert ol d O ffi cer E vans orL t . G os her ta s t or ydi r ect l ycontr aryt o w hatthe conf i dent i al i nform antpr ovi ded, a n d y e t th e o f

f ice rs b lin d lyw e n t ah e a d w ith th e v e rsio n in c lu d e d in th e w a rra n t af f id a v it. 1w i t nes s es w i t hi n hers ound s t r at egi c di s cr et i on. W e mer el yexpl ai n t hateven the one f act t hatw oul d have c onnect ed the fa m i l ym ember s t o t he af fi ant ’ s s t at e of mi nd i s m i s s i ng her e, s o a fort i or i , B r ow n fai l s t o es t abl i s h Str i ckland ’ s per form ance pr ong. W e al s o agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatfur t herdi s coveryand i nves t i gat i on 2 w o u ld n o t ai d B row n ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n . C o n sist en t w ith the th em e o f th is op inion , w e a re convi nced thatan ul t i m at e di s coverythatno contr ol l ed pur chas e t ook pl ace on M ar ch 1, 2002 ( as s um i ng ar guendo thatw er e the truth) s heds no l i ghton U l r i ch’ s eff ect i venes s as 6 W i t h respectt o the prej ud i ce pron g, the m ov ant m ustshow that “there i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Jermyn v. H orn , 2 6 6 F . 3 d 2 5 7 , 2 8 2 (3d C ir . 2001) . “R eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y ” i s defi ned as “a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci entt o underm i ne confi dence i n t he out come. ” I d. H er e, even ha d U l r i ch done e veryt hi ng B r ow n now al l eges thats he s houl d have done, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d nothave gr ant ed a Fr anks hear i ng beca us e none of B r ow n’ s fami l ym ember s t es t i fi ed def i ni t i vel y( atthe § 2255 hea r i ng) thatB r ow n di d not actual l yengage i n t he pr eci s e drug tr ans act i on i n ques t i on i n hi s r es i dence on t he aft ernoon of M ar ch 1, 2002. Fur t her , even ha d B r ow n’ s fami l ym ember s offe r ed compel l i ng t es t i m ony , B r ow n s t i l l coul d nots how thatthe off i cer s l i ed i nt ent i onal l yor m a d e re p re se n tatio n s w ith re c k les s d isre g a rd f o r th e tru th . A t b e st B ro w n ’s f a m ily m ember s ’ t es t i m onyr ai s es a cr edi bi l i t ybatt l e betw een themsel ves and the conf i dent i al in f o rm a n t, bu t su c h a b a ttl e h a s d e m in im is e f f e c t o n w h a t Fr anks re q u ire s B ro w n to es t abl i s h w i t h r es pectt o t he s ear ch w arr antaff i ant , atl eas tw her e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on w hat s oevert hatt he off

i cer s cons pi r ed w i t h t he i nform antt o l i e. 2co u n sel u n d er Str i ckland , o n the a ff iant’s st ate o f m ind u n d er Fr anks , o r on B row n ’s actual i nnocenc e w i t h r es pectt o t he i t ems found i n hi s r es i dence on M ar ch 6, 2002. L i ke t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w e ar e cogni zantthatw e ar e dea l i ng w i t h a s ent ence of l i fe im p riso n m e n t, bu t w e a re b o u n d b y§ 2 2 5 5 a n d its in terp re tiv e ru les , w h ich d o n o t p e rm it us t o undo t hats ent ence her e. 7 III . B e c a u se B ro w n c a n n o t d e m o n stra te in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

trial c o u n se l, w h ich is t he onl ybas i s forhi s appea l , t he D i s t r i ctC ourtdi d noterri n concl udi ng thathi s s ent ence i s val i d, and s o w e w i l l aff i r m i t s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on under§ 2255.