2009 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 12-7-2009 

# U SA v . D ou gl a s K e nnedy 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 . 08-3633

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_2009

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 2009 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 . D ou gl as Ke nne dy " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 141. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/141NOT 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 os . 08- 3633 and 08- 3859

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l antN o. 08- 3859

v. DOUGL AS KE NNE DY, A ppel l antN o. 08- 3633 A p p ea ls from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00028- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember17, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber7, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. D o u g las K en n ed yap p ea ls fo ll o w ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of h is m o ti o n fo r a new t r i al on fourcount s of convi ct i on. K ennedyar gues thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al on al l ei ghtcount s of convi ct i on, and thatj oi nderof tw o of the count s i n t he i ndi ctm ent2

w as i m pr oper . T he governm entcr os s - appea l s cont endi ng thati tw as err ort o gr anta new trial o n a n yc o u n t. O n N ovember9, 2004, aft erconduct i ng s ur vei l l ance and s peaki ng w i t h a cooper at i ng w i t nes s , D rug E nfor cementA gencyagent s arr es t ed K ennedyas he r eturned t o hi s hom e i n hi s L i ncol n N avi gat or . K ennedycons ent ed t o a s ear ch of hi s r es i dence , t he N avi gat or , and a Cadi l l ac, or al l yand i n w r i t i ng. A gent s s ear ched hi s r es i dence and found
amm uni t i on, fi r earm s , cas h, a phone thathad bee n us ed t o comm uni cat e w i t h t he cooper at i ng w i t nes s , and appr oxi m at el y9 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne, w hi ch K ennedy al l egedl yadmi t t ed w as hi s . N ot hi ng i l l egal w as found i n t he C adi l l ac, buta gun and her oi n w er e found i n t he N avi gat or . O vera y earl at er , on N ovember23, 2005, an empl oy ee of

a pr i vat e contr act oroper at i ng a s t or age f aci l i t yus ed bythe U ni t ed St at es M a rsh a l’s S e rv ice , fo u n d 1 0 3 .9 g ra m s o f h e ro in a n d a h a n d g u n in a se c re t co m p a rtm e n t in t he C adi l l ac w hi l e doi ng r out i ne mai nt enanc e on the ca r . Pr evi ous l y , the governm enthad
s ear ched the C adi l l ac us i ng drug s ni ffi ng dogs and the s ame em pl oy ee ha d conduct ed
ro u tin e m a in te n a n c e o n th e c a r n u m e ro u s tim e s , w ith o u t f in d in g a n yc o n tr a b a n d . O n M ay23 , 20 06 , a S econ d S up ers eding Indictm ent w as r eturned a gainst K enn edyal l eging t he fo l l ow i ng cou nts : C o u n t I : C ons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , 21 U . S. C . § 846 ( i n par tfordrugs found i n C adi l l ac) C ou n t I I : Poss es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e her oi n, 21 U . S. C . § 841 and § 2 ( drugs fo u n d in N av igato r) C ou n t I II : P o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a rm in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c ri m e , 1 8 U .S .C .§ 9 2 4 (c) (gu n in N av igato r)3

Co u n t I V: P o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te h e ro in , 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 a n d § 2 (d ru g s in C adi l l ac) Co u n t V: P o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a rm in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c ri m e , 1 8 U .S .C .§ 924( c) ( gun i n C adi l l ac) C ou n t V I: Poss es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne bas e, 21 U . S. C . § 841 and § 2 ( cr ack f ound atR es i dence ) C ou n t V II : P o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n , 1 8 U .S .C .§ 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) (g u n in N av igato r) C ou n t V III : P o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) (g u n in C adi l l ac) O n Ju ly2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , K en n ed yw as f o u n d g u il tyo n all eigh t cou n ts fo ll o w ing a f o u rdayj ur yt r i al . N um er ous l aw enfor cementoffi cer s t es t i fi ed aboutthe s ur vei l l ance , the
s ear ch of the hous e and c ar s , K ennedy ’ s s t at ement s t o l aw enfor cement , and the contr aband f

ound i n t he N avi gat orand the C adi l l ac. D efe ns e couns el at t acke d t he governm ent ’ s i ni t i al fai l ur e t o fi nd the contr aband i n t he C adi l l ac a nd the y ear - l ong pas s age of

t i m e bef or e i tw as found i n hi s openi ng s t at ement , hi s s um m at i on, and dur i ng h is c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o f w itn e s s e s . O n O ct ober24, 2006, K ennedyfi l ed a pro se m ot i on fornew couns el , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed on N ovember2, 2006. O n N ovember15, 2007, K ennedy ’ s new couns el fi l ed a mot i on fora new t r i al , ar gui ng thatthe unt i m el i nes s of thatm ot i on w as due t o excus abl e negl ect . T he mot i on fora new tr i al cont ended that : 1) tr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o chal l enge the admi s s i bi l i t yof the evi dence found as a r es ul tof the s ea rch o f th e C ad il lac; 2) tw o co u n ts of the S ec o n d S u p erse d ing Ind ict m en t w ere im p ro p e rlyjo in e d ; an d 3 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t im p ro p e rlyc h a rg e d o n lyo n e c o n sp ira c yd e sp ite offe r i ng pr oof of numer ous cons pi r aci es . T he governm entoppos ed the mot i on bas ed on4

its u n tim e lin e s s a n d its s u b s ta n c e . O n A ugus t21, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d or al ar gum enton K ennedy ’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al and a s ent enci ng hear i ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed the mer i t s of the
m o tio n f o r a n e w trial a f

ter f in d in g th a t th e re w a s e x c u sa b le n e g lec t d u e to
m i s comm uni cat i on, orno comm uni cat i on, betw een K ennedyand hi s tr i al couns el aft er t he tr i al . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed K ennedy ’ s i m pr operj oi nderar gum entbeca us e the j oi ned count s w er e s i m i l ardrug t r aff i cki ng char ges and di s m i s s ed K ennedy ’ s ar gum ent
r egar di ng t he cons pi r acychar ge bec aus e the governm ent“al l eged a nd char ged onl yone cons pi r acy . ” K ennedyA ppendi x ( “K A ”) 65. T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen dec i ded that K ennedy ’ s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o chal l enge the admi s s i bi l i t yof the evi dence obt ai ned fr om t he s ear ch of the C adi l l ac a y earaft erK ennedy ’ s arr es tand that th is c le a rl yp re

ju d ic e d K e n n e d y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed K ennedya new tr i al on count s I , I V , V , and V I I I of the S ec o n d S u p erse d ing Ind ict m en t and sen tenc ed K en n ed yo n the re m ainin g fo u r co u n ts ( II, I I I , V I and V I I ) t o 180 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . Fol l ow i ng thes e rul i ngs , K ennedyfi l ed a
n o tice o f a p p e a l an d th e g o v e rn m e n t f iled a n o tice o f

c ro ss -a p p e a l. I . N ew T rial a s to F o u r C o u n ts K en n ed yarg u es th at his tr ial co u n sel’s i n ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce p o ison ed h is en ti re tr ia l a n d th e re f

o re , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in g ra n tin g a n e w tr ia l a s to o n ly f o u r c o u n ts . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr antK ennedya new tr i al on fourcount s underFeder alK ennedydoes notus e the t erm “pr ej udi ci al s pi l l over . ” “The conc eptof pr ej udi ci al 1 s pi l l over. . . r equi r es an as s es s m entof the l i kel i hood t hatthe j ury , i n cons i der i ng one par t i cul arcountordefe ndant , w as aff ect ed byevi dence thatw as r el evantonl yt o a di ffe r entcountordefe ndant . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

am i l t on , 3 3 4 F . 3 d 1 7 0 , 1 8 1 (2d C ir . 2003) . K ennedy , how ever , does notdemonstr at e how the j uryw as pr ej udi ced a s t o t he r emai ni ng count s byt he admi s s i on of the evi dence found i n t he C adi l l ac, es peci al l ys i nce th e re m a in in g c o u n ts a ls o in v o lv e d e v id e n c e o f d ru g s a n d g u n s . See H am i l t on , 334 F. 3d a t 1 8 2 (“ [ P ]re

ju d icia l sp ill o v e r is u n lik e lyif th e d ism iss e d c o u n t an d th e re m a in in g c o u n ts w ere eith er q u it e sim il ar o r qu it e d issi m il ar.”).

5 R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 33 i s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on; a D i s t r i ctC our tabus es its d is c re tio n b yd e f

in itio n w h e n it m a k e s a n e rr o r o f la w . U n itedS ta tes v . Ke lly , 539 F .3 d 1 7 2 , 1 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t K e n n e d y ’s tria l co u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ili n g to chal l enge the admi s s i bi l i t yof the evi dence found i n t he C adi l l ac, and gr ant ed hi s m ot i on f o r a n e w trial o n th e f

o u r c o u n ts a risin g o u t o f th a t ev id e n c e . K e n n e d ya rg u e s th a t h is trial c o u n se l’s in e f

f e c tiv e n e ss in f

e c ted h is e n tire tria l w ith c o n stitu tio n a l er ro rs s o th a t a new t r i al w as w arr ant ed as t o al l ei ghtcount s of convi ct i on. K ennedydoes not dem on strat e ho w t hese err ors affect ed the ot her fou r counts , no r does he p res ent anycase law to su b stan ti ate h is cl aim . T h ere fo re, w e c an n o t con clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt 1 abu sed i t s di scr et i on i n g rant i ng K enn edya new tri al on on l yfou r outof eight counts . T h e g o v ern m en t con tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in g ran ti n g K en n ed y ’s
m ot i on fora new t r i al by1) al l ow i ng K ennedy ’ s t ar dym ot i on fora new tr i al bas ed on
excus abl e negl ect , 2) rul i ng on a gr ound t hatw as neverr ai s ed byK ennedyi n hi s m ot i onT he C endant C or p co u rt and P i oneerC our tdeal tw i t h excus abl e negl ecti n t erm s of 2 Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) , butthe fa ct or s fora courtt o cons i derar e r el evant to th is c a s e . T h e G o v e rn m e n t su g g e sts in a f o o tn o te th a t, un d e r th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r u lin g in 3 E ber har tv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 4 6 U .S . 1 2 , 1 3 (2 0 0 5 ), th e D istric t C o u rt lac k e d a u th o rityto cons i derK ennedy ’ s m ot i on bas ed on exc us abl e negl ect . T he C our ti n E berha rt found t h a tt h e ru l e s s e t t i n g t i me l i mi t s we r e n o tj u r i s d i c t i o n a l , b u twe r e i n f l e x i b l e c l a i mp ro c e s s in g ru le s . I

d. T he C our tal s o found thatthe t i m e l i m i ti n Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal P ro c e d u re 3 3 is “ ri g id ” a n d m a yn o t b e e x te n d e d e x c e p t a s s ta te d in R u le 3 3 its e lf. I d. 6 fora new t r i al , 3) gr ant i ng a new t r i al on fourcount s bas ed on tr i al couns el ’ s deci s i on not t o br i ng a mer i t l es s m ot i on, and 4) neverexpl i ci t l yfi ndi ng thatK ennedys uffe r ed p re ju d ic e a n d a s s u m in g th a t K e n n e d ys u f f e re d p re ju d ic e b a s e d o n h is p o te n tia l s e n te n c e . A . E x cus abl e N egl ect U nderFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 45( b) ( 1) ( B ) , a courtm ayext end the tim e p re sc rib e d u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 3 3 (b )(2 ) d u e to e x c u sa b le negl ect . E xcus abl e negl ecti s an equi t abl e det erm i nat i on thats houl d t ake a ccountof relev an t ci rcu m stan ce s, inclu d ing d an g er o f p rejud ice, th e len g th o f th e d elay , the d elay ’s i m pacton j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , t he r eas on forthe del ay , w hetherthe movanthad contr ol
o v e r t h e d e la y , a n d w h e th e r t h e m o v a n t a c te d in g o o d f a ith . I n r e Ce n da n tCor

p . PRI DES Li t ig. , 234 F. 3d 166, 171 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng P i on eer I nv. Servs. v. B runsw i ck A ssocs. L td . P ’sh ip , 507 U . S. 380 ( 1993) ) . T he G overnm entconce des thati tdi d notchal l enge 2 the D istri ct C o u rt ' s au tho ri tyto ex tend the tim e p eriod fo r K en n ed yto f il e a m o ti o n fo r a new t ri al , al t ho ug h itdid opp ose t hat m oti on as unti m el ybecau se i tw as fi l ed alm ost six tee n m o n th s a f

ter K e n n e d y ' s c o n v ictio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its 3(c iti n g F e d . R u le o f C rim . P ro . 4 5 (b )(2 )). A s th e S e c o n d C irc u it p o in ts o u t: R e a d in c o n

ju n c tio n w ith ... R u le 4 5 (b ), t h e d e f e n d a n t is ... requi red t o fil e a t i m el ym oti on for a new tri al un der R ule 3 3 ( b) ( 2) w i t hi n t he s even- dayper i od s peci fi ed. . . . [H ow ever ], u n d e r R u le 4 5 (b )(1 )(B ), if f o r so m e re a so n th e d e f

e n d a n t f a ils to fi le th e under l y i ng m ot i on fora new t r i al w i t hi n t he s peci fi ed tim e , the c o u r t m a yn o n e th e les s c o n sid e r th a t u n tim e ly u n d e rly in g m o tio n if

th e c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e f a ilu re to f

ile it o n tim e w a s th e re su lt o f e x c u sa b le n e g lec t. U ni t ed Stat es v. O w en , 5 5 9 F . 3 d 8 2 , 8 4 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (cit ing F ed . R . C ri m . P . 3 3 ad v isory co m m ittee' s n o tes (20 0 5 A m en d m en ts) ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso ask ed K en n ed y ’s co u n sel at ora l argu m en t on the m o ti o n fo r a 4 new t r i al i f he w as ar gui ng t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o chal l enge the 7 di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng t he mot i on due t o excus abl e negl ectaft erfi ndi ng thatther e w as l i t t l e orno comm uni cat i on betw een K ennedyand hi s tr i al at t orneyaft erthe tr i al and K e n n e d y ’s tr ia l a tto rn e yh a d “ a b a n d o n e d h im a f te r t h e tr ia l.” K A . 4 6 , 5 4 , 6 4 . B . R ul i ng on G rounds not R ai s ed by K ennedy i n hi s M ot i on f or a N ew T ri al A tr ia l ju d g e m a yn o t g ra n t a n e w tr ia l o n g ro u n d s n o t r a is e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. W

r ight , 363 F. 3d 237, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n hi s m ot i on fora new tr i al K ennedy ’ s s ent enci ng couns el ar gued thattr i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve i n notfi l i ng any pr e- t r i al m ot i ons oradequa t el ychal l engi ng the evi dence found i n t he C adi l l ac a y earaft er t hatcarw as s ei zed byt he governm ent . T he governm entfaul t s s ent enci ng couns el fornot s peci fi cal l ydes cr i bi ng the i s s ue as one i nvol vi ng “cha i n of cus t ody . ” H ow ever , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t cl ea rl yerr in co n side ri n g the issu e n o tw ith stan d ing co u n sel’s fai l ure t o ch aract eri ze i tas an argum ent r egardi ng the “ch ai n o f cust od y , ” beca use K en n ed y ’s arg u m en t w as su b stan ti all ysim il ar. 4chai n of cus t odyof the evi dence i n the C adi l l ac a nd K ennedy ’ s couns el ans w er ed i n t he

a f f ir m a tiv e . 8 C . I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel W e n o te a t th e o u tse t th a t ra re ly , if e v e r, sh o u ld a n in e f f e c tiv e n e ss o f

c o u n se l cla im be dec i ded i n a mot i on fora new t r i al oron di r ectappea l . "[ T ] hi s C our thas expr es s ed a pr efe r ence t hati neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el cl ai m s be br oughtas col l at er al chal l enges under28 U . S. C . § 2255, r atherthan as m ot i ons fornew tr i al s oron di r ect app eal . " U

n itedS ta tes v . C h o rin , 3 2 2 F . 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 2 n . 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D eRew al , 10 F. 3d 100, 104- 5 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( s t at i ng thata R ul e 33 mot i on i s not th e p re f e rre d v e h icle f

o r a ss e rtin g in e f

f e c tiv e n e ss o f

c o u n se l cla im s)) ; see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. U

galde , 861 F. 2d 802, 809 ( 5th C i r . 1988) ( “D efe ndant s pr ej udi ced by i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el have a r eadyr emedy . T heym aym ounta col l at er al
c h a l l e n g e b ya f

e d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n a s a l l o we d b y2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 . Th a tme c h a n i s m, rather than a new t ri al , seem s bestt o acco m m od at e t he int eres t s i n final i t yand fai rness w i t h r es pectt o i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s . ”) . H abea s pr ocee di ngs offe rt he
o p p o rtu n ityfo r th e d ev elop m en t of a f ac tual rec o rd. N o su ch rec o rd w as d ev elop ed h ere i n connec t i on w i t h t he mot i on fora new tr i al . W e do notendor s e the pr ocedur e fol l ow ed b yth e D istric t C o u rt, b u t w ill p ro c e e d to e x a m in e w h a t d id o c c u r h e re in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e m o tio n f

o r a n e w tr ia l. U n d er Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , t o gr anta new tr i al bas ed on i neff ect i ve9

as s i s t ance of couns el , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us tfi nd that( 1) couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entand ( 2) thatt he def endantw as pr ej udi ced bythi s per form ance . 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i s r evi ew ed de
novo . U nited S tates v. C ross , 3 0 8 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). i . D ef i ci ent P erf

orm ance T o det erm i ne w hetherK ennedy ’ s tr i al couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent , the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have s t ar t ed w i t h a w eak pr es um pt i on thattr i al couns el ’ s deci s i on w as s t r at egi c, w hi ch K ennedycoul d r ebutbys how i ng thatthe conduc tw as notpartof a
s tr a te g yo r t h a t th e s tr a te g yw a s u n s o u n d . Thom as v. V ar ner , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nots t artw i t h t hi s pr es um pt i on of s t r at egyand i ns t ead of pl aci ng t he bur den on K ennedyt o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on of s t r at egyi tpl ace d t he bur den on t he governm entt o demonstr at e thatK ennedy ’ s tr i al couns el had a s t r at egy . T he D istri ct C o u rtalso d en ied th e g o v ern m en t’ s req u est fo r an ad jou rnm en t so tha t K en n ed y ’s trial c o u n se l co u ld tes tifya s to h is s tra teg y . T h e D istric t C o u rt to ld th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t if t her e w er e r el evantfac t s t hatt he C our ts houl d be aw ar e of, the governm ents houl d have b ro u g h t th e m to th e C o u rt in th e p ro p e r f o rm . K A . 5 1 . H ow ever , w e have s t at ed: I n cas es i n w hi ch th e r ecor d does notexpl i ci t l ydi s cl os e tr i al couns el ' s actual s t r at egyorl ack ther eof ( ei t her due t o l ack of d ili g e n c e o n th e p a rt o f

th e p e tit io n e r o r d u e to th e u n a v a ilab ili ty of couns el ) , t he pr es um pt i on m ay onl ybe r ebut t ed thr ough a sh o w in g th a t n o so u n d stra teg y p o site d b y th e C o m m o n w e a lth c o u ld h a v e su p p o rte d th e c o n d u c t.See Low enf i eld v. P hel

ps , 817 F. 2d 285, 291- 92 ( 5th C i r . 1987) ( hol di ng thatcouns el 5 w as notdefi ci entw hen he made a s t r at egi c dec i s i on nott o chal l enge the cha i n of cus t ody of w eapons s o t hathe coul d ar gue thatot her s w er e i m pl i cat ed i n t he murde r s and thatt he s lo p p yp o lic e w o rk re f

le c te d a d v e rs e ly o n th e s ta te ' s e n tir e c a s e ).

10 Thom as , 4 2 8 F .3 d a t 4 9 9 . T he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e does notdi s cl os e tr i al couns el ’ s actual s t r at egyorl ack ther eof, and t he bur den w as on K ennedyt o s how thattr i al couns el ’ s act i ons coul d neverbe partof a
s ound s t r at egy . T he G overnm entpos i t s thatK ennedy ’ s tr i al couns el m ayw el l have made a dec i s i on nott o m ove t o excl ude thi s evi dence as s uch a mot i on w oul d have be en m eri t l ess, and i tw ou l d b e m ore effecti ve to at t ack the w ei gh tof thi s evi den ce on cross exami nat i on. K ennedydi d nots how thattr i al couns el ’ s deci s i on w as notpartof a

5
s tr a te g yn o r t h a t th e re w a s n o p o s s ib le s o u n d s tr a te g yo f f e re d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. N o n ethe less, the D istri ct C o u rtm ad e it s o w n co n clus o ryd eterm ination that K en n ed y ’s t r i al couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o m ake a chai n of cus t odyar gum ent“s eems nott o have be en hi s s t r at egi c choi ce” and thatt her e w as “no appa r entr eas on nott o m ake thi s appea l i ng a rg u m e n t.” K A . 6 7 -8 . W e d o n o t f

in d su p p o rt f

o r th is c o n c lu sio n in th e re c o rd . C o u n se l’s d e c isio n n o t to c h a llen g e th e e v id e n c e in th e C a d ill a c b a se d o n a c h a in o f c u sto d ya rg u m e n t is n o t a defi ci entper form ance as a mat t erof l aw . T her efor e, the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r el i evi ng K e n n e d yo f

h is b u rd e n to p ro v e in e f f e c tiv e n e s s b yre b u ttin g th e p re s u m p tio n o f s tr a te g y . A s th e re c o rd s ta n d s , K e n n e d yf a ile d to p ro v e th a t c o u n s e l’ s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

ic ie n t.I f K ennedy ’ s couns el had obj ect ed t o t he cha i n of cus t odyof the C adi l l ac, i ti s uncl ear 6 w hethert he g ov ernm ent w ou l d h ave b een ab l e t o est abli sh chain of cu st od y . “T o est abli sh a c h a in o f

c u sto d y , the g o v e rn m e n t n e e d o n lysh o w th a t itto o k re a so n a b le p re c a u tio n s to p rese rve the e v iden ce in it s o ri g inal co n d it ion , ev en if all p o ssibil it ies o f tam p ering are notexcl uded. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 11 i i . P rej udi ce T o s how pr ej udi ce, t her e musthave be en a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythat , butfor K ennedy ’ s t r i al couns el ’ s defi ci entper form ance , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have b e e n d if f e re n t. Str i ckland, 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 4 . A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyis a “ p ro b a b ili ty s uffi ci entt o underm i ne conf i dence i n t he out come. ” I d. K ennedyhad t o s how thathe
w oul d have l i kel ypr evai l ed on the mot i on t o excl ude the evi dence found i n t he C adi l l ac and that , havi ng pr evai l ed, t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythathe w oul d nothave be en c o n v ic te d . Thom as , 428 F. 3d at502. T h e D istric t C o u rt ru led th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c h a in of cus t odyovert he C adi l l ac w as “atl eas ts om ew hats us pi ci ous ” ( K A . 66) butnever actual l yconcl uded thatK ennedyw oul d have s ucce eded i n a mot i on t o excl ude the evi dence bas ed on cha i n of cus t ody . I ns t ead, the D i s t r i ctC our tm er el yfound thathad 6 K ennedy ’ s couns el been s ucce s s ful i n t hi s ar gum ent , the j urycoul d nothave c onvi ct ed K ennedyof the cr i m es bas ed on pos s es s i on of the evi dence found i n t he C adi l l ac. T he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o t hor oughl yr eas on thr ough t he pr ej udi ce pr ong of the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el anal y s i s and i n det erm i ni ng thatK ennedyw as pr ej udi ced. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe mot i on fora new tr i al s houl d nothave b e e n g ra n te d .12

I I . Joi nder T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatal l of the off ens es char ged aga i ns tK ennedyw er e drug tr a f f ic k in g o f f e n s e s a n d th u s w e re p ro p e rl yjo in e d . K en n ed yarg u es th at co u n ts I I ( pos s es s i on of her oi n w i t h i nt entt o del i ver ) and I I I ( pos s es s i on of a gun i n fur t her ance of a d rug tr af

fick ing crim e), w h ich b o th d ea ltw ith ev iden ce fo u n d in the N av igato r, w ere i m pr oper l yj oi ned bec aus e theyw er e unr el at ed t o t he cons pi r acychar ged. W e make an i ndepende ntdet erm i nat i on as t o w hetherornotj oi nderof count s underR ul e 8 w as p ro p e r; if

jo in d e r w a s im p ro p e r, w e m u s t u n d e rt a k e a h a rm le s s e rr o r a n a lysis . U ni t ed Stat es v. Ir izarry , 3 4 1 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 8 sta tes th a t “[ t]h e in d ictm e n t o r in f o rm a tio n m a yc h a rg e a d e f e n d a n t in se p a ra te c o u n ts
w i t h 2 orm or e off

ens es i f the off

ens es char ged - w hetherfel oni es orm i s demeanor s or bot h - ar e of the s ame ors i m i l archar act er , orar e bas ed on the s ame actortr ans act i on, or a re c o n n e c te d w ith o r c o n s titu te p a rt s o f a c o m m o n s c h e m e o r p la n .” K ennedyci t es no cas e l aw t o s uppor thi s pos i t i on. K ennedys t at es thatthe evi dence of contr aband f ound i n t he N avi gat orw as capa bl e of i m pr oper l yi nfl uenci ng and confus i ng t he j ur yon t he cons pi r acychar ges and furt herpr ej udi ced K ennedyby
e n h a n c in g h is p o ten tial se n ten c e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s th a t all c o u n ts w e re p ro p e rly j oi ned bec aus e theyw er e bas ed on s i m i l arconductand i m pl i cat ed the s ame cr i m i nal
s t atut es . Fur t herm or e, t he governm entcont ends thatK ennedycannots how anypr ej udi ce f ro m th e jo in d e r.13

J oi nderi s pr operi f the off ens es char ged ar e of a s i m i l archar act er . C ount s I I and I I I ar e i dent i cal char ges t o count s I V and V , exce ptthattheyi nvol ve contr ol l ed
su b sta n c e s f

o u n d in d if

f e re n t lo c a tio n s. W e f

in d th a t co u n ts II a n d III w e re p ro p e rly jo in e d . Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above w e w i l l A FFIRM the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng on jo in d e r o f

c o u n ts II a n d III, R E V E R S E th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f a n e w trial o n c o u n ts I, I V , V , a n d V II I, a n d R E M A N D f o r r e -s e n te n c in g o n ly.