2005 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
6-6-2005 

# U SA v . M c C oy P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-2607

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_2005

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 2005 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 . M c C o y " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 928. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/928P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 03- 2607

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AR CR E S S E M CC OY a / k / a M AR K S HI NNE a/k/a M A R K C H IN a / k / a J E RR ON MCCO Y M a r c r e s s e M c C o y, 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D. C. No. 9 8

- c r - 0 0 0 0 5
- 2 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

A r gued February14, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , A M B R O , and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 6, 2005)

B ruce A
. A nt kow i ak ( A r gued) G r eens bur g, PA l 5601 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant2 B onni e R
. Schl uet er M i chae l L
. I vor y( A r gued) Paul M
. T hom ps on O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney Pi t t s bur gh, PA l 5219 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. M ar cr es s e M cC oyappea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 2255. T he s ol e s ubs t ant i ve i s s ue on appe al i s w hether the D istri ct C o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n b yd en y ing an ev iden ti ary h e a ri n g . I. A pol i ce of

fi ceri n t he Eri e A r ea G ang and Law E n f o rc e m e n t T a sk F o rc e w a s in f o rm e d b ya re liab le s o u rc e th a t a m an named J os eph B arnet t e w oul d be arr i vi ng i n E r i e, Penns y l vani a, fr om D etr oi t , M i chi gan vi a G r eyhound bus on M ar ch 17, 1998, atappr oxi m at el y5: 15 p. m . A ccor di ng t o t he s our ce, B arnet t e w oul d be tr avel i ng w i t h fr i ends , w oul d be a rm e d , an d w o u ld b e c a rry in g c ra c k c o c a in e . B a se d o n th is i nform at i on, T as k For ce a gent s es t abl i s hed s ur vei l l ance atthe b u s s ta tio n . W hen the s chedul ed bus arr i ved, a man m at chi ng B a rn e tte’s d e sc rip tio n e x ited th e b u s w ith n o b a g s a n d m a d e h is w ayto the fro n t do o r of the b u s term inal. S h o rt lythere af ter, t hr ee otherbl ack mal es carr y i ng garbage ba gs and a bl ue ca nvas duffe l bag l eftt he bus , exi t ed the bus t erm i nal thr ough t he fr ont door , and s ett hei rbags on t he s i dew al k nextt o B arnet t e. Pol i ce Ser geant s J os eph K r es s and R ober tL i ebel obs erved that M ar cr es s e M cC oycarr i ed the bl ue duff el bag, w hi l e tw o other3 i ndi vi dual s , l at eri dent i fi ed as K endr i ck G r i erand M i chae l M cQ ueen, carr i ed the tr as h bags
. O nce out s i de, the fourm en w er e obs erved s har i ng ci gar et t es and t al ki ng as i f theyknew ea ch o ther. O ffi cer s appr oache d t he gr oup of m en, i dent i fi ed t hemsel ves , and ques t i oned ea ch of the fourm en s epar at el y . T he offi cer s r ece i ved conf

l i ct i ng ans w er s i n r es pons e t o i nqui r i es of w hethert he men knew eac h other , w hethertheyhad tr avel ed t ogether , and the purpos e of thei rvi s i t
. B arnet t e, fori ns t ance , i ni t i al l yi dent i fi ed hi m s el f as “A r del l G r i ffe n” and de ni ed k n o w in g th e o th e r in d iv id u a ls. M c C o yre p re se n ted th a t h is n a m e w a s “ M a rk C h in ” a n d sta ted th a t h e k n e w “ A rd e ll G r i ffe n, ” butdeni ed know i ng G r i er , w ho w as tr avel i ng underthe name “C ar l t on D avi ds on. ” G r i er , i n contr as t , admi t t ed tr avel i ng w ith b o th B a rn e tte a n d M c C o y . B ec au se o f th ese inco n sist en t r esp o n ses, th e o ff icers i nqui r ed as t o t he ow ner s hi p of the garbage ba gs and bl ue duff el bag. M cC oycl ai m ed ow ner s hi p of tw o garbage ba gs and gave offi cer s perm i s s i on t o s ear ch them; theycont ai ned s hoes , s hoe boxes , w etcl ot hi ng, and a s cr ew dr i ver . M cQ ueen c l ai m ed ow ner s hi p of the r emai ni ng garbage ba g, w hi ch cont ai ned c lo th in g . A ll f

o u r m e n d e n ie d o w n e rs h ip o f th e b lu e d u f

f e l b a g . M cC oys peci fi cal l ydeni ed ca r r y i ng i tfr om the bus
. A s ear ch r evea l ed thatt he duff

el bag cont ai ned 270 i ndi vi dual l ypacka ged p las tic b a g g ies o f

c ra c k c o c a in e , fo rtyslig h tly -la rg e r p las tic baggi es of cr ack c ocai ne, a l ar ge zi pl oc- t ype bag c ont ai ni ng one pound of m ar i

j uana, a 9mm pi s t ol w r apped i n a t ow el , and a . 380 cal i ber pi st ol hi dd en insi de a p ai r of j eans. A ll f o u r m e n w e re a rr e s te d a n d ta k e n in to c u s to d y . I ndi vi dual s ear ches r evea l ed thatal l fourbus t i cket s , i s s ued underfi ct i t i ous names, w er e pur chas ed atthe s ame t i cketcount er w i t hi n fourm i nut es of ea ch otherand appr oxi m at el yt en mi nut es p ri o r t o the s ch ed u led d ep arture. A sea rch incid en t t o M cC o y ’s a rre st re v e a led th a t h e h a d p o ss e ss io n o f B a rn e tte’s b u s tic k e t in t he fi ct i t i ous name of “A r del l G r i ffe n, ” al ong w i t h hi s ow n t i cket i n t he fi ct i t i ous name of “M ark Shi nne. ” M cC oyal s o had a pageri n hi s pos s es s i on. A num berr etr i eved f r om the page rForr e a s o n s n o tc l e a rf r o m t h e r e c o r d , t h e t wo o t h er 1 i ndi vi dual s , K endr i ck G r i erand M i chae l M cQ ueen, w er e not in d ic te d
. 4 m a tch e d a n u m b e r w ritten o n a p iec e o f p a p e r f o u n d in B a rn e tte’s p o c k e t. O n A pr i l 14, 1998, a gr and j uryi n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r etur ned an i ndi ctm entchar gi ng M cC oyand B arnet t e w i t h vi ol at i ng fede r al drug and gun l aw s . A fi ve count s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw as fi l ed on J une 16, 1998. C ountO ne 1 char ged thatbegi nni ng on oraboutM ar ch 17, 1998 ( t he dayof t he arr es t ) , t he def

endant s had cons pi r ed t o di s t r i but e and p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se a n d m a riju a n a in vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 846. C ountT w o char ged thatthe defe ndant s pos s es s ed w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e i n exce s s of fiftyg ram s o f c o ca ine b ase in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § § 8 4 1 (a), (b )(l)(A )(iii). C o u n t T h re e c h a rg e d th e d e f e n d a n ts w ith pos s es s i on w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e l es s than 500 gr ams of m a riju a n a in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a ), (b )(1 )(C ). C o u n ts Fourand Fi ve cha r ged B arnet t e and M cC oy , r es pect i vel y , as convi ct ed fe l ons i n know i ng pos s es s i on of fi r earm s i n vi ol at i on o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). Pr i ort o t r i al , t he G overnm entpr ovi ded not i ce of i t s i nt ent to in tro d u c e F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ) e v id e n c e a g a in st b o th B a rn e tte and M cC oy . T he G overnm ents oughtt o i ntr oduce e vi dence of B arnet t e’ s pr i ors t at e fe l onydrug convi ct i on. A s forM cC oy , the G overnm ents oughtt o i ntr oduce hi s 1991 fel onyconvi ct i on for carr y i ng a conc eal ed w eapon. B ey ond t hes e convi ct i ons , the prosecuti on al so i ntended t o introduce t est i m on yof the part i es’ pr i orbad ac t s ; s peci fi cal l y , i tpr offe r ed thati thad t es t i m oni al evi dence es t abl i s hi ng t hatB arnet t e and M cC oyhad bee n i nvol ved i n t he s al e of drugs i n E r i e on a numberof occ as i ons pr i ort o M ar ch 1998, and thatthe drug tr ans act i ons perpetr at ed b yth e tw o w e re u n iq u e b e c a u se th e d ru g s w e re d istrib u ted in s m al l zi pl oc- t ype baggi es i dent i cal t o t hos e found i n t he duff elT h is tes tim o n ial e v id e n c e a llu d e d to b y th e p ro se c u tio n is 2 n o ti n th e r e c o r d
. I twas g i v e n a s J e n c k s ma t e r i a l , s e e 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 0 0 (b ); Je n c k s v . U n ited S tate s, 3 5 3 U .S . 6 5 7 (1 9 5 7 ), to M cC oy ’ s t r i al couns el on t he daybefor e the tr i al b eg an , butw as no tplaced i n the r ecord. H ow ever, t he m at eri al , w h ich w a s al so g i v e n t o M c Coy ’ s p r e s e n tc o u n s e l , i s r e f e r r e d t o i n g e n e r a l t e r ms in h is a p p e lla te b ri e f. A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 1 -1 4
. 5 bag. T he G overnm entar gued thatcol l ect i vel ythe R ul e 404( b) 2 evi dence w oul d es t abl i s h t hatthe def endant s had know l edge of th e c o n ten ts o f

th e b a g , inte n d e d to d istrib u te th e d ru g s, a n d d id notactbym i s t ake orot heri nnocentr eas on. I n addi t i on, the G overnm entar gued thatthe pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e admi s s i bl e as pr edi cat e convi ct i ons forthe fi r earm s char ges thatw er e the s ubj ectof C ount s Fourand Fi ve. Fol l ow i ng a pr etr i al hear i ng, B arnet t e’ s at t orneyfi l ed a
“ Je m a l stip u latio n ” se e k in g to p re v e n t th e in tro d u c tio n o f h is pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on fordeal i ng coca i ne and the t es t i m oni al evi dence of hi s pr i ordrug deal i ng act i vi t y . See U ni t ed St at es v. Jem al, 2 6 F
. 3 d 1 2 6 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ) (ho lding that d istri ct co u rt s houl d or di nar i l yr efus e t o admi tevi dence of def endant ’ s pr i or bad ac t s t o s how know l edge a nd i nt entw hen def endanthas pr offe r ed s t i pul at i on t hatr emoves i s s ues of know l edge a nd in te n t f ro m ju ry’s c o n s id e ra tio n ). T he s t i pul at i on w as s i gned byB arnet t e on O ct ober19, 1 9 9 8 , an d p ro v id e d th a t: ( a) W i t h r egar d t o t he tw o ( 2) char ges of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne and m ar i j uana, I agr ee a nd s t i pul at e thati n t he eve nt t he j ur yfi nds as a mat t erof fa ctthatI pos s es s ed t he bl ue duff

el bag s ei zed a tthe G r eyhound B us St at i on i n w hi ch the drugs w er e found, then the ju rym a ya lso f

in d w ith o u t f

u rth e r e v id e n c e th a t I w o u ld k n o w that the s u b stan ce s w h ich w ere cont ai ned i n t he bag w er e coc ai ne and mar i j uana a n d f u rt h e r t h a t I in te n d e d to d is tr ib u te th e m . M y6 defe ns e i n t hi s cas e i s thatI w as noti n pos s es s i on o f th e b a g o r th e d ru g s o r g u n s f o u n d in it. A pp. at393- 94. N ot abl y , B arnet t e’ s J emal s t i pul at i on di d not ext end t o t he cons pi r acychar ged i n C ountO ne; the bur den r emai ned on the G overnm entt o pr ove thatther e w as i n fac tan a g r e e m e n tb e t w e e n B a r n e t t e a n d M c C o y. In a se c o n d N o tice o f

In ten t, th e G o v e rn m e n t d e c lar e d its in ten tio n , n o tw ith sta n d in g B a rn e tte’s Je m a l stip u latio n , to i nt r oduce the R ul e 404( b) pr i orbad ac t s and s i gnatur e drug packa gi ng evi dence as r el evantt o t he agr eementel ementof the cons pi r acychar ged i n C ountO ne. A ta pr etr i al hear i ng hel d on O c to b e r 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 , the D istric t C o u rt ru led th a t th e p rio r b a d a c ts evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e i t s pr ej udi ci al eff ect out w ei ghed i t s pr obat i ve val ue, and bec aus e the bad a ct s conduct o c c u rre d to o re m o te in tim e to th e o n e -d a yc o n sp ira c yc h a rg e d to h a v e o c c u rre d o n M a rc h 1 7 , 1 9 9 8 . A lth o u g h th e C o u rt sta ted it w oul d al l ow t he G overnm entt o offe revi dence abouts om e pr i or per s onal as s oci at i on betw een Bar net t e and M cC oy , i texcl uded e v id e n c e o f

d ru g d e a lin g a lto g e th e r. T h e C o u rt a lso re

jec ted th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a ttem p t to in tro d u c e “ sig n a tu re ” d ru g p a c k a g in g e v id e n c e a ss o c iate d w ith B arnet t e and M cC oy ’ s al l eged pr evi ous drug tr ans act i ons on t he gr ound t hatt he evi dence w as not“s uffi ci ent l yuni que t o w arr ant t he i nfer ence t hatan i ndi vi dual w ho [w as ] a perpetr at ori n one ca se is a p erp etrator in an o ther.” A p p . at 33 0
. F inally , the C o u rt hel d t hat , gi ven B arnet t e’ s J emal s t i pul at i on, the G overnm ent w o u ld b e re str ict ed fro m d iscu ssing the n ature o f B arn ett e’s pr i orfel onyatt r i al ; i tcoul d onl yi ntr oduce e vi dence of hi s s t atus as a convi ct ed fe l on forpurpos es of the fi r earm s char ge i n C ount Four
. T he C our tdi d notexpl i ci t l yrul e w hetherthe natur e of M cC oy ’ s pr i orfel onyw as admi s s i bl e. A tt h e s a m e p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g , M c C o y’ s tr i a l a t t o r n e y, K hadi j a D i ggs , expr es s ed herr el uct ance t o ent eri nt o a J emal sti p u lat ion sim il ar to tha t entere d into b yB arn ett e. M cC o y ’s pr i ors t at e fe l onyconvi ct i on w as forcarr y i ng a conc eal ed w eapo n, no tfor drug d i stri bu t i on , and thu s carri ed fa r l essA t the O ct ober23, 1998 hear i ng, D i ggs s t at ed that 3

“ M c Coy s ho u l d n o te v e n b e a s k e d t o s t i p u l a t e b a s e d o n my under s t andi ng of the go v ernment ’ s 404( b) pr offe rbeca us e that i nform at i on i s notappr opr i at e as agai ns t M cC oy . ” A pp. at281- 82. S h e w e n t o n to sa y , h o w e v e r, th a t “[ t]o th e e x ten t th a t th e c o u rt is inclined to al low 4 0 4 (b) ev iden ce in, I b eli ev e th at M c C o y ’s w i l l i ngnes s t o s t i pul ate t o know l edge a nd i nt entw oul d pr ecl ude t h a t 4 0 4 ( b ) e v i d e n c e , ” a n d t h a t s h e wo u l d “ p r e s e n t t h a t t o my cli en t” fo r his co n side rati o n . A p p . at 28 2 -83
. A lth o u g h the re co rd i ncl udes t he w r i t t en J emal s t i pul at i on ent er ed i nt o byB arnet t e, s ee A p p . a t3 9 2

- 9 5 , i td o e s n o ti n c l u d e a s i mi l a rwr i t t e n s t i p u l a t i on ent er ed i nt o byM cC oy . See A pp. at68 ( dockets heetr efl ect i ng s t i pul at i on of B arnet t e, but not M cC oy ) ; A pp. at 1385 ( A ffi davi tof B a rn e tte’s c o u n se l sta tin g : “W h ile M s. D ig g s d id n o t as sis t m e in th e p re p a ra tio n o f th e w ritten Je m a l stip u latio n sig n e d b ym yc lien t, I rec a ll th a t sh e a d o p ted th e stip u latio n o n b e h a lf o f M r. M c C o yin t h e l a t e p r e - t r i a l s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . I a l s o r e c a l l t h a twe co n cu rred i n the j uryi ns truct i ons reg ard ing the J em al st ipu lat ion
. ”). A ccor di ng t o M cC oy ’ s pr es entcouns el , M cC oy ’ s J e ma l s t i pul at i on w as notform al l y ent er ed unt i l the poi ntattr i al w hen D i ggs agr eed to th e p ro p o s e d ju ry in s tru c tio n . T hi s s t i pul at i on s t at es t hat “M cC oy . . . w as convi ct ed of 4 a fel onyoffe ns e puni s habl e bya t erm of i m pr i s onm entexce edi ng o n e (1 ) ye a r.” A p p . a t 4 0 2
. 7 p r o b a t i v e v a l u e r e l a t i v e t o th e d ru g c h a r g e s i n Co u n t s On e , T wo a n d T h re e . F u rth e r, th e G o v e rn m e n t sp e c if ied th e p rio r b a d a c ts e v id e n c e c lo se lyty in g B a rn e tte to th e g u n s a n d d ru g s f o u n d in t he bag. I n contr as t , t he bad a ct s evi dence al l egedl yi m pl i cat i ng M cC oyw as nevers peci fi ed bef or e the tr i al , and thatw hi ch w as r e f e r r e d t o a p p e a r e d r e l a t i v e l ys p a r s e . No n e t h e l e s s , a ts o me p o in t f o llo w in g th e O c to b e r 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 h e a rin g , D ig g s e n ter e d in to a J emal s t i pul at i on on behal f of M cC oy . M cC oyal s o ent er ed a 3 s epar at e w r i t t en s t i pul at i on, admi tt i ng hi s s t atus as a convi ct ed fel on forpurpos es of the fi r earm s char ge i n C ountFi ve. 4 T he j ur yt r i al began on O ct ober27, 1998, and l as t ed t hr ough N ovember4, 1998. T he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence w as heavi l yw ei ght ed t ow ar ds B arnet t e. T he G overnm entpr es ent ed8 T err ySi egw or t h, t he G overnm enti nform antw ho had i dent i fi ed B arnet t e as t he per s on w ho w as t o arr i ve i n E r i e w i t h cr ack coca i ne. Si egw or t h al s o t es t i fi ed thathe had s een Bar net t e on var i ous occa s i ons w i t h a . 380 cal i berhandgun s i m i l art o t he one se ize d f ro m th e b lu e d u f

f e l b a g , an d th a t h e h a d tak e n B a rn e tte t o a l ocat i on i n A nder s on, I ndi ana, w her e the hand gun w as s t i pul at ed t o be r egi s t er ed. T hi s t es t i m onyw as corr obor at ed by M a rio n S m ith , w h o tes tifie d th a t h e h a d se e n B a rn e tte in p o ss e ss io n o f

th e .3 8 0 c a lib e r h a n d g u n o n se v e ra l in sta n c e s in t he pas t
. B el i nda Pet er s on t es t i fi ed thatthe 9mm handgun found in th e d u f

f e l b a g w a s s im ilar to o n e sh e h a d o b se rv e d B a rn e tte carry i ng i n lat e N ov em ber or ear l yD ecem ber of 1 99 7; s he als o tu r n e d o v e rt o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a h o l s t e rth a tf i tth e 9 mm handgun, w hi ch s he t es t i fi ed B arnet t e had s t or ed i n her a p a rtm e n t. K endr i ck G r i er , one of the fourm en w ho tr avel ed on the b u s , t e s t i f

i e d f o rt h e Go v e r n me n tth a th e h a d e s c a p e d f r o m a hal fw ayhous e w hen B arnet t e off er ed t o t ake hi m t o E r i e. W hen G r i erm etB arnet t e att he home of B arnett e’ s aunt , he obs erved t he pac ked bl ue duff

el bag on the fl oor . B arnet t e and G r i er p ick e d u p M c Q u e e n a n d M c C o ya n d th e n d o u b led b a c k to B arnet t e’ s aunt ’ s hous e t o pi ck up the duff el bag bef

or e tr avel i ng t o t he bus s t at i on. G r i ert es t i fi ed thatB arnet t e ca r r i ed the duff el bag i nt o t he t erm i nal and pai d foreac h per s on’ s t i cket
. G r i er al s o t es t i fi ed thatB arnet t e s t at ed he ha d a pai rof s hoes i ns i de t he duff el bag s i m i l art o t he s hoes thatG r i erw as w ear i ng on t he dayati s s ue. T hi s r emar k w as part i cul ar l ys i gni fi cantbeca us e a p a ir o f sh o e s w a s re c o v e re d f

ro m th e b lu e d u f

f e l b a g , in B arnet t e’ s s i ze, w hi ch w er e the s ame m ake a s the s hoes G r i er w as w ear i ng. T he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence agai ns tM cC oyw as r el at i vel yw eak i n compar i s on. Sever al w i t nes s es , i ncl udi ng Ser geantK r es s , Ser geantL i ebel , and G r i er , t es t i fi ed thatM cC oy carr i ed the bl ue duff

el bag fr om the bus t o t he l ocat i on on t he s t r eetw her e i tw as s ei zed. W hen ques t i oned bypol i ce, M cC oy act ed nervous l yand gave i ncons i s t entr es pons es . Fur t herm or e, t her e w as evi dence t hatM cC oyand B arnet t e had tr avel ed t ogetherand thatt heyhad a pr i orr el at i ons hi p. Fi nal l y , the9 G overnm entr ebut t ed M cC oy ’ s purpor t ed i nnocentpurpos e for hi s bus t r i p- - m eet i ng a gi r l named C her eka J acks on–t hr ough t he t es t i m onyof M s . J acks on her s el f, w ho s t at ed thats he knew M c C o yb u t w a s n o t e x p e c tin g h im in E ri e o n M a rc h 1 7 , 1 9 9 8
. N o tab ly , the G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted n o e v id e n c e to d e m o n stra te th a t M c C o yh e lp e d p a c k th e b lu e d u f f e l b a g o r k n e w o f

its con t ents
. M cC oy , i n turn, soug ht t o refute the G ov ernm ent’ s case ag ains t him b yp rese n ti n g ev iden ce o f a p ri o r ba ck an d leg in jury w h ic h p u rp o rt e d ly p re c lu d e d h im f ro m lif tin g h e a v yo b

je c ts
. M cC oy ’ s gr andmot her , R ayven C hi nn, t es t i fi ed thatM cC oy w al ked w i t h a l i m p and ut i l i zed a l eg br ace , and opi ned that M cC oyw ou l d b e un able t o carrythe b l ue d uff el bag
. S he als o expl ai ned the us e of hi s al i as , s t at i ng thatM cC oyw as cal l ed M ark byfam i l ym em bers and h ad b een k no w n to use her l ast name, w hi ch w as s om et i m es m i s t aken f or“C hi n, ” or“Shi nn, ” or “Shi nne. ” C hi nn fur t hert es t i fi ed thatM cC oyhad r ece i ved the p a g e r, w h ich w a s f

o u n d in h is p o ss e ss io n o n th e d a yo f a rre st, fr om hi s uncl e. Fi nal l y , C hi nn t es t i fi ed thatM cC oyhad t ol d her he w as t r avel i ng t o E r i e t o m eeta gi r l
. Fur t her , M cC oy at t empt ed t o underm i ne the cr edi bi l i t yof Ser geant s K r es s and L iebe l th rou g h the testi m o n yo f th eir fo rm er su p erv isor, G reg o ry D ol l i nger . D ol l i ngers t at ed thatK r es s and Li ebel w oul d do anyt hi ng nece s s aryt o s ecur e a drug convi ct i on, i ncl udi ng l y i ng u n d e r o a th
. G i ven the J emal s t i pul at i ons ent er ed byboth B arnet t e and M cC oy , t he j ur yw as r ead the fol l ow i ng i ns t ruct i ons r egar di ng t he s ubs t ant i ve drug char ges i n C ount s T w o and Thre e:

[I n] t hi s cas e, the def

endant s have s t i pul at ed t o cert ai n el ement s of ea ch of the off ens es . T hat is, w ith re g a rd to th e c rim e s o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m a riju a n a a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne. I f y ou s houl d fi nd fr om al l of the evi dence thatthe governm enthas pr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatJ os eph B a rn e tte a n d /o r M a rc re ss e M c C o yw e re in pos s es s i on of the bl ue duff el bag s ei zed bythe l aw10 enfor cementoffi cer s atanyt i m e, then y ou m ay concl ude w i t houtfur t herevi dence thatJ os eph B arnet t e and M ar cr es s e M cC oyknew thatthe bl ue duffe l bag cont ai ned coc ai ne and mar i j uana a nd th a t th e yo r h e in te n d e d to d is tr ib u te th e m . H ow ever , y ou m ayconcl ude thi s onl yi n t he eve nt t haty ou fi nd t hatthe governm enthas pr oved b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t Jo se p h B a rn e tte and/ orM ar cr es s e M cC oyw er e i n pos s es s i on of the b lu e d u f f e l b a g . T h e d e f

e n se o f e a c h d e f e n d a n t in t hi s cas e i s t hatt heyw er e noti n pos s es s i on of the bl ue duff el bag. A p p . a t 1 2 7 1 -7 2 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). O n N ovember4, 1998, the j uryr eturned a ve r di ctof gui l t yas t o bot h B arnet t e and M cC oyon C ount s O ne, T w o and T hr ee ( t he drug count s )
. B arnet t e w as found gui l t yon C ount Fourof the i ndi ctm ent , the fi r earm char ge aga i ns thi m . M cC oy wa s f o u n d n o tg u i l t yo n th e f i r e a r m c h a r g e a tCo u n tF i v e . On M ar ch 3, 2000, M cC oyw as s ent ence d t o concurr entt erm s of 1 3 2 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t at C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o a n d six ty m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t o n C o u n t T h re e . O n di r ectappea l , thi s cour ti n a non- pr ece dent i al opi ni on, af firm ed the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rt , h o lding that there w as no pl ai n err ori n t he above j uryi ns t ruct i on. W e s t at ed that t he D i s t r i ctC our tm er el yhel d B arnet t e and M cC oy“t o t he bar gai n t hatt heym ade w hen theyent er ed i nt o the J emal s t i pul at i on and ther ebyavoi ded the i ntr oduct i on of othercr i m es evi dence t hatw as pr obat i ve of thei rknow l edge a nd i nt ent
. ” A pp. at46. H ow ever , pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es v. T obi n, 155 F. 3d 636 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( r efus i ng t o ent ert ai n i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n se l cla im o n d ire c t ap p e a l), w e d e c lin e d to re a c h th e m e rits o f M c Co y ’ s i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. O n M ay28, 2002, M cC oyfi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 2255 fora w r i tof habe as corpus , al l egi ng thathi s tr i al couns el ’ s deci s i on t o ent eri nt o t he J emal s t i pul at i on cons t i tut ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el beca us e “ther e w as no11 r eas onabl e ort act i cal bas i s forcouns el t o s t i pul at e aw ay ” the el ement s of know l edge a nd i nt enton t he drug char ges . A pp. at 1316. O n M ay20, 2003, the D i s t r i ctC our ts ua s pont e j oi ned M c C o y ’s § 2 2 5 5 a c tio n w ith th e se p a ra te a n d in d e p e n d e n t § 2255 act i on of B arnet t e, w hi ch w as fi l ed on J une 5, 2002. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed B arnet t e r el i ef on a r e- s ent enci ng i s s ue that w as w h o ll yind ep en d en t of M cC o y ’s claim ; M cC o y ’s in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim w a s d e n ied o u trig h t. On M a y2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , M c Co yf i l e d a No t i c e o f

Ap p e a l
. On F e b ru a ry1 3 , 2 0 0 4 w e g ra n ted a C e rtific a te o f A p p e a lab ili ty (“C O A ”) as foll ow s: T h e f o re g o in g re q u e st f

o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili tyis gr ant ed w i t h r egar d t o t he appe l l ant ’ s cl ai m thattr i al co u n sel w as in ef

fe cti v e f o r st ipu lat ing that if th e jury found the appe l l antw as phy s i cal l yi n pos s es s i on of the b lu e d u f f le b a g , itc o u ld , w ith o u t m o re , fin d th a t h e b o th knew t hatt he bag c ont ai ned the drugs w hi ch w er e the su b jec t o f h is c o n v ictio n a n d th a t h e in ten d e d to d istrib u te t h e m. A p p a t 3 6
. I I . B arnet t e w as notr e- s ent ence d pur s uantt o t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s M ay2 0 , 2 0 0 3 O rde r un ti l M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , an d this co u rt has noty eti s s ued a de ci s i on as t o w hetherhe w i l l be gi ven a C O A
. T he G overnm entar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o hear M cC oy ’ s appea l fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M ay20, 2003 O r der b e c a u se B a rn e tte h a d y e t to b e re -se n ten c e d a s o f th e d a te M cC oyfi l ed h i s noti ce of app eal
. S ee A nd rew s v. U nit ed S t at es, 373 U
. S. 334, 339- 40 ( 1963) ( hol di ng thator dervaca t i ng s e n te n c e d o e s n o t b e c o m e f in a l u n til r e -s e n te n c in g ). W e re je c t th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s c h a lle n g e to o u r j u ri s d ic tio n . W h en B arn ett e w as re -sen tenc ed o n M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , M cC o y ’s N ot i ce of

A ppeal , fi l ed on M ay28, 2003, “r i pened” i nt o an appea l fr om a fi nal or der
. See LazyO i l C o. v. W i t co C orp. , 16612 F. 3d 581, 585 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( r ei t er at i ng ourpos i t i on i n C ape M ayG r eene , I nc. v. W arr en, 698 F. 2d 179 ( 3d C i r . 1983) , that“a pr ematur e not i ce of

appea l , fi l ed af

t erdi s pos i t i on of s om e of the c laim s b e f

o re a d istric t co u rt, b u t b e f o re e n tryo f

f in a l ju d g m e n t, w il l r ipen u p o n the c o u rt ’s disp o sal o f th e re m ainin g claim s”); see also W elch v . C ad re C ap it al, 9 2 3 F
. 2 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 2 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 1 ). T he co nsoli dati on of M cC oy ’s case w i t h B arnet t e’s case in th e D istric t C o u rt d o e s n o t d e p riv e M c C o y ’s c a se o f its fi nal i t y . See U ni t ed St at es v. $8, 221, 87. 16 i n U ni t ed St at es C ur r ency , 330 F. 3d 141, 146 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “The cons ol i dat i on of tw o cas es does notaut om at i cal l ypr ecl ude the appe al abi l i t yof an or deri n one. W e have cons i s t ent l yr ej ect ed a br i ght

- l i ne rul e, pr efe r r i ng a ca s e- by

- cas e appr oach thatexami nes the over l ap among t he cl ai m s , t he r el at i ons hi p of the var i ous part i es , and the l i kel i hood of the cl ai m s bei ng tr i ed t ogether
. ”) T hei rcas es on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar e mar kedl ydi ffe r ent
. A tthe t i m e M cC oy ’s § 2 25 5 m oti on w as fi l ed, and for the en t i re course in w h ich it w a s p led , an sw e re d , an d a rg u e d , itw a s k e p t se p a ra te and di s t i nctfr om B arnet t e’ s § 2255 m ot i on. T he tw o act i ons w ere joine d su a sp o n te bythe D istri ct C o u rtfo r w h at ap p ea rs fro m the re co rd to b e a d m inistrati v e c o n v en ienc e. M o reo v er, t hi s cour tgr ant ed a CO A l i m i t ed t o M cC oy ’ s cl ai m . T hus , for th e a b o v e re a so n s, w e h o ld th a t w e h a v e ju risd ictio n o f th is appea l under28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1291, 2253. III
. W e thus tur n t o t he onl yi s s ue bef or e us : w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bydeny i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng on M cC oy ’ s i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m . W e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. Sol i s v. U n ite d S ta te s , 2 5 2 F .3 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 p ro v id e s th a t: A p ri so n er in c u stod yu n d er se n tenc e o f a co u rt es t abl i s hed byA ctof C ongr es s . . . m aym ove the cour tw hi ch i m pos ed the s ent ence t o vaca t e, s etT he i s s ue of w hetherM cC oy ’ s t r i al couns el w as 5 i neff ect i ve i s notbefor e us. Such an i nqui r y w oul d be subj ectt o de n o v o rev iew
. S ee D u n ca n v . C ross , 3 0 8 F
. 3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 4 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). W e have pr evi ous l yadvi s ed court s t o cons i dert he

6 pr ej udi ce pr ong befor e e x am ini ng t he per form ance of couns el becau se this cou rs e of a ct i on i s le ss bu rdensom e t o d efen se couns el
. See M cA l ees e v. M azurki ew i cz, 1 F. 3d 159, 170- 71 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); s e e a ls o S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 7
. 13 as i de orcorr ectt he s ent ence . U nl es s the mot i on a n d th e f iles a n d re c o rd s o f

th e c a se c o n c lu siv e ly s how t hatt he pr i s oneri s ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef, the cour ts hal l caus e not i ce ther eof t o be s erved upon t he U ni t ed St at es at t orney , gr anta pr om pthear i ng t her eon, det erm i ne the i s s ues and make fi ndi ngs of f a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w w ith re s p e c t th e re to
. .

. . (em p h asis ad d ed ). W e have hel d t hata di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o gr antan ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g w h en the f il es a n d rec o rds o f th e c ase are i nconcl us i ve on the i s s ue of w hetherm ovanti s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef cons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on. Sol i s , 252 F. 3d at294- 95; s ee al s o Sm i t h v. U ni t ed St at es , 348 F. 3d 545, 550 ( 6th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Font ai ne v. U ni t ed St at es , 411 U
. S. 213, 215 ( 1973) ( per cu ri am )). 5 A
. Pr ej udi ce T h e D istric t C o u rt d e v o ted th e e n tiretyo f its d isc u ss io n to t he pr ej udi ce pr ong of U ni t ed St at es v. St r i ckl and, 466 U
. S. 668 ( 1984) , fi ndi ng t hatbas ed on the r ecor d befor e i t , “M cC oyhas

6 notes t abl i s hed a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythat , butforthe al l eged err or s of hi s t r i al couns el , he w oul d have be en ac qui t t ed on C ount s 1, 2, or3 of the Super s edi ng I ndi ctm ent
. ” A pp. at30 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h a t m is s ta te s th e a p p ro p ri a te s ta n d a rd
.14 I ns t ead, undert he s t atut e the D i s t r i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o gr ant a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g u n les s th e re c o rd b e f o re it “c o n c lu siv e ly sh o w [ e d ]” th a t M c C o yw a s n o t p re ju d ice d b yD ig g s’ d e c isio n to ent ert he J emal s t i pul at i on. M cC oyar gues t hatD i ggs ’ deci s i on t o ent eri nt o t he J emal s t i pul at i on r el i eved the G overnm entof i t s bur den t o pr ove the m os tdi ffi cul tel ement s of the drug char ges

— know l edge a nd i nt ent
. T he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons pr ovi ded that“[i ] f y ou s houl d fi nd fr om al l of the evi dence that
. . . M cC oy[w as ] i n pos s es s i on of t he bl ue duff

el bag .
. . t hen y ou m ayconcl ude w i t houtfur t her evi dence t hat
. . . M cC oyknew thatthe bl ue duff el bag c o n tain e d c o c a in e a n d m a riju a n a a n d th a t . . . h e in ten d e d to di s t r i but e them. ” A pp. at1271- 72. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded t hat M cC oyw as not pr ej ud i ced b ythe Jem al st i pu l at i on becau se o f th e p e rm is s iv e n a tu re o f th e ju ry c h a rg e . A lth o u g h thes e ins tru cti o n s “a ll o w ed – b u t did n o t r eq u ir e

– th e ju ryto f

in d th e e lem e n ts o f

k n o w led g e a n d in ten t, co n sist en t w ith the s ti p u lat ion , ” A p p . at 29 , theyfo cu sed the ju ry on pos s es s i on of the duff el bag r atherthan M cC oy ’ s know l edge and i nt ent
. W e ar e notconvi nced thatthe perm i s s i ve natur e of t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons “conc l us i vel ys how [s ] ” thatM cC oyw as not pr ej udi ced. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2255. A s a r es ul tof the J emal s t i pul at i on, the pr os ecut i on w as l e f twi t h t h e r e l a t i v e l ys i mp l e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g th a ta ts o me poi ntM cC oyw as i n pos s es s i on of the bl ue duff el bag. T hr ee w i t nes s es , t w o of them pol i ce of fi cer s , t es t i fi ed thatM cC oy carr i ed the duff

el bag fr om the bus t o t he s i dew al k out s i de the E rie b u s s tatio n . A lth o u g h M c C o ya ttem p ted to re b u t th is t es t i m onyt hr ough evi dence of hi s phy s i cal ai l m ent , w hi ch he al l eged w oul d have pr event ed hi m fr om carr y i ng the bag, and t hroug h im peach m ent of t he G ov ernm ent’ s w i t nesses for bi as, t he i s s ue of pos s es s i on vel non amount ed t o a det erm i nat i on of cr edi bi l i t y . Faced w i t h overw hel m i ng fi r s t
- hand ac count s of m ul t i pl e w i t nes s es obs ervi ng M cC oycarr y i ng the bl ue duff el bag, and no fi r s t
- hand w i t nes s es cont es t i ng thes e ac count s , the j ur ycoul d eas i l yhave r eac hed i t s concl us i on thatthe G overnm ents at i s fi ed i t s bur den w i t h r es pectt o t he pos s es s i on15 el ement
. H ow ever , even i f the j urybel i eved thatM cC oycarr i ed t he duff el bag fr om t he bus t o t he Eri e s t at i on, i tw oul d notbe di s pos i t i ve of the keyi s s ue of w hetherM cC oyw as aw ar e of the cont ent s of the bag. T he know l edge a nd i nt entel ement s pr es ent ed a f ar g r e a t e rb u r d e n f

o rt h e Go v e r n me n t
. M c Co yc o n t e n d s , a n d we agr ee, t hatt he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence agai ns thi m i n t hi s r egar d, w as “no di ffe r enti n anym eani ngful r es pectthan the fa ct s the [G ] overnm enthad aga i ns tthe othertw o m en [G r i erand M c Q u e e n ]” w h o w e re n o t e v e n in d ic te d . A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 5
. A lth o u g h M c C o yu se d a f ictitio u s n a m e o n h is b u s tic k e t, so d id G r i erand M cQ ueen; fur t herm or e, al l fourt i cket s w er e pur chas ed byB arnet t e. G r i ert es t i fi ed thatB arnet t e al r eadyhad the bl ue duffe l bag pac ked and pr epar ed w hen he metB arnet t e at B arnet t e’ s aunt ’ s hous e on the dayof the arr es t
. T her e w as no evi dence t hatM cC oyas s i s t ed i n packi ng the bag orthathe made an ystat em en ts i m p ly ing that h e k n ew o f it s co n tents. F u rth er, G r i ert es t i fi ed thatM cQ ueen ha d handl ed the bag dur i ng a s t op overi n C l evel and. A l l fourm en had de ni ed pos s es s i on of the bag dur i ng t he pol i ce que s t i oni ng. Fi nal l y , al t hough ther e w as tes tim o n yth a t M c C o ya n d B a rn e tte h a d a p rio r re latio n sh ip , itis ev iden t th at bo th G ri er a n d M cQ u ee n h ad a sim il ar, i f n o t m o re s ubs t ant i al , pr i orr el at i ons hi p w i t h B arnet t e. G r i erhad ca l l ed B arnet t e upon es capi ng fr om hi s hal fw ayhous e and M cQ ueen h a d f a th e re d a b a b yw ith B a rn e tte’s a u n t. W e need no tdecide on this app eal w hetherthere exis t s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythatthe G overnm entw oul d have be en unabl e t o m eeti t s bur den on the el ement s of know l edge a nd i nt entw i t houtt he J emal s t i pul at i on. T hati s an i s s ue forthe D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance aft eran evi dent i aryhear i ng w h e n it c o n s id e rs w h e th e r M c C o ys u f f e re d p re ju d ic e . W e d o n o te th at i n sev era l case s w ith fa cts ev en m o re compel l i ng t han thos e i n t he pr es entcas e, thi s cour thas hel d t hat t her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe el ementof k n o w ledg e in a d rug co n sp ir ac y . In U n it ed S tat es v . W ex ler, 838 F. 2d 88 ( 3d C i r . 1988) , the G overnm entpr es ent ed evi dence t hatdefe ndanthad dr i ven a l ookoutcari n a drug del i very , had16 ges tur ed t o and s poken t o act i ve cons pi r at or s dur i ng the cons pi r acy , and w as i n pos s es s i on of a s t ol en C B r adi o. 838 F .2 d a t 9 0 -9 2 . W e sta ted th a t w h ile th e re is “ a m p le ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
. . . fr om w hi ch the j urycoul d have c o n c lu d e d th a t W e x le r w a s in v o lv e d in a c o n s p ir a c y. . .[ .] [ w ]h a t is m iss in g is a n ye v id e n c e th a t W e x ler k n e w th a t a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w as couche d behi nd the door s of the R y der tru ck
. ” Id
. at 91
. A cc o rdin g ly , w e re v erse d the d ef en d an t’ s convi ct i on on t he gr ound thati tw as s uppor t ed byi ns ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . Id . a t 9 2
. T he pr i nci pl e enunc i at ed i n W exl er , thatthe G overnm ent bear s t he hea vybur den of pr ovi ng the know l edge e l ementof a drug pos s es s i on char ge, i s r efl ect ed i n ours ubs equentdeci s i ons r ever s i ng convi ct i ons beca us e of i ns uffi ci entevi dence of know l edge. See U ni t ed St at es v. C art w r i ght , 359 F. 3d 281, 291 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( r ever s i ng convi ct i on w her e arm ed def endant funct i oned as l ookoutforcons pi r at or s and had mes s agi ng devi ce s i m i l art o ot her s arr es t ed) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T hom as , 114 F. 3d 4 0 3 , 4 0 5 -06 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ) (r ev ersing co n v ict ion w h ere defe ndantarr i ved athot el r oom w her e drug packa ge w as dr opped, us ed keyt o ent er , carr i ed handgun, and cont act ed drug s o u rc e b yp h o n e n u m e ro u s tim e s ); U n ite d S ta te s v . B ro w n , 3 F. 3d 673, 680- 84 ( 1993) ( r ever s i ng convi ct i on w her e def endant arr i ved atdrug “c ut house” u si ng key , referred t o p l ace as hers, l efthercl ot hi ng and w eapon ther e, and had pr i ordrug convi ct i on) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sal m on, 944 F. 2d 1106, 1112- 15 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( r ever s i ng convi ct i on w her e def endantadmi t t ed t ravel i ng t o d rug deli verysi t e w i t h som eon e t o “w at ch [h i s] b ac k , ” p erf

o rm ed su rve il lanc e, an d h ad su rve il lanc e e q u ipm en t)
. W e ther efor e conc l ude thatther e i s ampl e bas i s forthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o have he l d an evi dent i aryhear i ng focus i ng on w hetherD i ggs ’ deci s i on t o ent eri nt o t he J emal s t i pul at i on m ay h a v e p re ju d ice d M c C o yb ya f

f e c tin g th e o u tco m e o f

th e trial. B
. C ouns el ’ s Per form ance I n r e a c h i n g t h e s e c o n d p r o n g o f th e S t r i c k l a n d i n q u i r y , we17 m us tcons i derw hetherD i ggs ’ deci s i on t o ent eri nt o t he J emal s tip u la tio n f

e ll b e lo w a n o b

je c tiv e s ta n d a rd o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s . St r i ckl and, 446 U
. S. at686- 94. T he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d have b e e n ju stif

ied in d e n y in g to h o ld a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n lyif it w as i ndi s put abl e thatD i ggs ’ deci s i on t o ent eri nt o t he J emal s t i pul at i on s at i s fi ed the St r i ckl and s t andar d foreff ect i venes s of couns el
. O urr evi ew i s confi ned t o w hether“the fi l es and r ecor ds of the ca s e conc l us i vel ys how thatthe pr i s oneri s ent i t l ed to n o reli ef

. . . . ” 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 5 (em p h asis ad d ed ). If M cC o y ’s pe ti ti o n all eg es a n yfa cts w arran ti n g reli ef u n d er § 2255 t hatar e notcl ear l yr es ol ved bythe r ecor d, the D i s t r i ct C our tw as obl i ged t o fol l ow the s t atut orym andat e t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. See Engel en v. U ni t ed St at es , 68 F. 3d 238, 240 ( 8t h C i r . 1995) ( s t at i ng that§ 2255 m ot i on “ca n be d ism issed w ith o u t a he aring [o n ly ] i f (1 ) th e p eti ti o n er’s a lleg a tio n s, a c c e p ted a s tru e , w o u ld n o t en tit le th e p e tit io n e r to rel i ef, or ( 2) the all egati on s canno tbe acc epted as true becau se t heyar e contr adi ct ed bythe r ecor d, i nher ent l yi ncr edi bl e, or concl us i ons r athert han s t at ement s of fa ct ”) ; s ee a l s o Font ai ne, 41 1 U
. S
. at21 4-15 (r equ i ri ng evident i aryheari ng for m ov ant’ s § 2255 cl ai m as s er t i ng t hathi s pl ea of gui l t yw as i nduced by , i nt er al i a, hi s poorphy s i cal condi t i on and her oi n addi ct i on n o t wi t h s t a n d i n g a p p r o p r i a t e c o l l o q u yp u r s u a n tt o F e d
. R. Cr i m. P . 1 1 ) . I t h a s b e e n re c o g n iz e d th a t “ [ t] h e s ta n d a rd g o v e rn in g . . . r eques t s [forevi dent i aryhear i ngs ] es t abl i s hes a r eas onabl yl ow t hr es hol d forhabea s pet i t i oner s t o m eet
. ” Phi l l i ps v. W oodfor d, 2 6 7 F
. 3 d 9 6 6 , 9 7 3 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). In th e p re se n t ca se , alth o u g h it ap p e a rs th a t B a rn e tte benef i t t ed fr om t he J emal s t i pul at i on beca us e hi s pr i or c o n v ictio n f

o r d ru g d istrib u tio n w a s k e p t f ro m th e ju ry , itis d if f icu lt fro m th e re c o rd to d isc e rn th e stra teg ic a d v a n tag e to M cC oyfr om t he s ame st i pul at i on. D ur i ng the O ct ober23, 1998 pr etr i al hear i ng ( befor e M cC oy ’ s couns el adopt ed the J emal stip u latio n ), th 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 R u le 4 0 4 (b ) e v id e n c e o f

M c C o y ’s p rio r d ru g se lli n g re latio n sh ip w ith B arnet t e w oul d be i nadmi s s i bl e. M or eover , M cC oy ’ s pr i or fel onyconvi ct i on w as forpos s es s i on of a c oncea l ed w eapon, not f o r d ru g d istrib u tio n (a s w a s th e c a se f o r B a rn e tte); th u s, it appea r s t hatt he pr obat i ve val ue of thi s convi ct i on t o t heT he G overnm entar gues thatthe J emal s t i pul at i on 7 benef i t t ed M cC oybecaus e B arnet t e and M cC oyw er e cod ef en d an ts an d “[ a] sti p u lat ion b y o n e o f them , b u t no t th e o ther .

. . w o u ld p rob ab lyh av e struc k the ju ryas v eryo d d
. ” A p p ell ee ’s B r . at43. W e fi nd t hi s ar gum entunconvi nci ng. T h e evi dence at t ri al w as verystrong ag ai nstB arnet t e, and rel at i velyw eak ag ai nst M c C o y . I t is n o t ap p a re n t th a t itw a s re a so n a b le f o r M c C o yto f o rf e it w h a t w a s a rg u a b lyh is b e st lin e o f d e f e n se f o r th e so le reas on t hat he and B arnet t e cou l d p res ent consi st ent defenses. 18 cons pi r acyand drug char ges atC ount s O ne, T w o and Thre e w as m i ni m al
. Fi nal l y , M cC oyhad ent er ed i nt o a s epar at e s t i pul at i on s t at i ng t hathe had c om m i t t ed a pr edi cat e fe l onyforthe 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) fi r earm s char ge. I ti s l i kel ythatM cC oy c o u ld n o n e th e les s h a v e a rg u e d lac k o f k n o w led g e o r in ten t w ith r egar d t o t he cont ent s of the duff el bag. C f. O l d C hi ef v. U ni t ed

7 S tate s, 5 1 9 U .S . 1 7 2 (1 9 9 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t d istric t co u rt a b u se s its d isc re tio n u n d e r F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 3 w h e n it ref u se s to p e rm it d e f e n d a n t, ch a rg e d u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), to stip u late to hi s /hers t atus as a convi ct ed fe l on w hen natur e of the pr i or convi ct i on i s undul ypr ej udi ci al and w her e the purpos e of the e v id e n c e is s o le ly to p ro v e th e e le m e n t o f p ri o r c o n v ic tio n ). W e agr ee w i t h t he G overnm entthatcour t s have be en h ig h ly d e f

e re n tia l to c o u n s e l’ s s tr a te g ic d e c is io n s , s e e , e .g ., St r i ckl and, 466 U
. S. at690 ( s t at i ng that“s t r at egi c choi ces m ade a f ter th o ro u g h in v e stig a tio n o f law a n d f

a c ts re lev a n t to p lau sib le opt i ons ar e vi r tual l yunchal l engea bl e”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. O t er o, 848 F. 2d 835, 838 ( 7t h C i r . 1988) , butm er el yl abel i ng a dec i s i on as “s t r at egi c” w i l l notr emove i tfr om an i nqui r yof r e a s on a bl e ne s s . Se e ge ne r a l l yD a vi ds on v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 95 1 F. Supp. 555, 558 ( W
. D
. Pa. 1996) ; s ee a l s o G ov’ tof the V
. I
. v. W e a th e rw a x , 7 7 F .3 d 1 4 2 5 , 1 4 3 1 -3 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T he di ffi cul t yfac i ng us i s thatbeca us e of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fai l ur e t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng atw hi ch tr i al couns el coul d have be en ques t i oned, w e ca nnotas cert ai n t he r eas ons ors t r at egyunder l y i ng D i ggs ’ acc ept ance of the J emal stip u latio n . W ith o u t th e o p p o rtu n ityto e v a lu a te th e ra tio n a leB ecause t he C O A i s l i m i t ed to the clai m of ineffecti ven ess 8 in e n ter in g th e Je m a l stip u latio n , w e d o n o t co n sid e r a n yp o ss ib le issue as to w h ethe r th e sti p u lat ion w as e n tered into w ith M cC o y ’s k n o w led g e a n d v o lu n tar yc o n se n t.
19 given byt ri al cou nsel , t he is sue of po ssi ble i neff

ect i ven ess c a n n o t b e c o n c lu siv e lyd e ter m in e d
. A n e v id e n tiary he a rin g is 8 t her efor e appr opr i at e. C f. E ver ettv. B ear d, 290 F. 3d 500, 514- 1 5 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) (find ing inef fe cti v en ess o f c o u n sel fo r fa il u re to o b ject on d u e p roc ess g rou n d s to juryinstruction s). A tt hatt i m e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tm ayal s o cons i derw hether D ig g s’ d e c isio n to e n ter in to th e Je m a l stip u latio n w a s u n d u ly i nfluenced byB arnet t e’s cou nsel
. In i t s r espon se t o M cC oy ’s § 2255 pet i t i on, t he G overnm entappende d an af fi davi tby B a rn e tte’s trial c o u n se l as se rtin g th a t D ig g s w a s in iti a lly r el uct antt o ent eri nt o t he J emal s t i pul at i on butthathe had per s uaded he rt o do s o i n or dert o “avoi d[] i ncons i s t ent d e f e n se s.” A p p . at 1 3 8 5 . H e a ss e rte d th a t th o se b e n e f its
“ re m a in e d e v e n a f

ter th e C o u rt late r d e e m e d th e 4 0 4 (b ) b a d a c ts e v id e n c e to b e in a d m iss ib le.” A p p . at 1 3 8 5 . T h e a f f id a v it, h o w e v e r, p ro v id e s n o ra tio n a le f o r th is s tate m e n t n o r d o e s it sp e c if yw h ich p rio r b a d a c ts e v id e n c e w a s s u c c e ss f u lly s tip u la te d a w a ya s a re s u lt o f e n te ri n g in to th e J e m a l s tip u la tio n . A l so app end ed to the G ov ernm ent’ s r espon se w as a do cum ent consi st i ng of h and w ri t t en n otes t aken from D i gg s’ t r i al fi l e w hi ch cont ai n br i ef phr as es s uch as “rul e 14 i m pr oper j oi nder ”; “404b nott o be us ed as evi dence ”; “r e- eval uat e the Je m a l stip u latio n ” ; “w h a t ar e th e c o n se q u e n c e s” ; “m ig h t h a v e to s e v e r ” ; a n d “ e x c l u d e o rs t i p u l a t e . ” A p p . a t1 3 9 5
. M o s tn o t a b l y, t hi s documental s o cont ai ns the phr as e “pr os ecut or i al m isc o n d u c t ca u sin g tac tica l d e c isio n .” A p p . at 1 3 9 5 . A t a hear i ng, i tm aybe us eful t o ques t i on tr i al couns el w hetherthe l at t err efe r s t o t he G overnm ent ’ s cont i nual r epr es ent at i on dur i ng pr etr i al hear i ngs t hati thad evi dence of M cC oy ’ s pr i ordrug deal i ng r el at i ons hi p w i t h B arnet t e, w hen the ac tual exi s t ence of s u c h e v id e n c e w a s n e v e r f u lly d is c lo s e d
.20 I V. Fort he above r eas ons , w e w i l l r ever s e the j udgm entof th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n y in g M c C o y ’s m o tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255 and r emand t he ca s e t o i tw i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng.

___________________