2007 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 12-14-2007 

# U SA v . S hu s t e rm an P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4196

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . S hus t e rm a n" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 61. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/61NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E 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- 4196 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . DE NI S S HUS T E RMAN, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt For t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00364) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . L e g ro m e D . D a v is Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber10, 2007 BE F OR E : RE NDE L L a n d S T AP L E T ON, C i r cui tJudges , a n d IR E N A S , D is tr i ct Judge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber14, 2007)

* H on. J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A p p e llan t D e n is S h u ste rm a n p led g u iltyo n th e tw e lf th d a yo f h is ju rytrial to a ll th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im . T w o m o n th s la ter , as h is s e n ten c in g a p p ro a c h e d , h e m o v e d to
w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl eas . A ft era tw o- dayevi dent i aryhear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed th is m o tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Shus t er m an , 4 5 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 3 5 7 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 6 ). T h is appea l fol l ow ed. B efor e us , Shust erm an cont ends ( 1) t hathi s pl eas w er e notvol unt ar i l yand know i ngl yent er ed; ( 2) t hathi s t r i al couns el w as “cons t i tut i onal l ydefe ct i ve; ” and ( 3) t hat h is pro sec u tor co m m itted “ m isco n d u ct. ” A fter co n side rati o n o f a ll o f S h u sterm an ’s
ar gum ent s , w e conc l ude thathi s convi ct i ons m us ts t and. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth in th e D istric t C o u rt’s th o ro u g h a n d c a re f u l o p in io n , itd id
no tabu se i t s di scr et i on byrefusi ng t o all ow t he w i t hd raw al of S hu st erm an’s pl eas. I n hi s br i ef be for e us , Shust erm an appe ar s t o cont end thati neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of
c o u n se l at tria l en tit les h im to a n e w trial w ith o u t re f e re n c e to w h e th e r it re n d e re d h is p le a s in v o lu n ta ry o r u n k n o w in g . If s o , h e w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t w h e n h e p le d g u ilty. U n itedS ta tes v . P a n a re lla , 277 F. 3d 678 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n anyevent , as expl ai ned at3

l ength i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on, Shust erm an has nots how n i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of
c o u n se l at tria l. S h u ste rm a n ’s c laim s o f p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t at tria l ar e a lso b a rre d b yh is g u ilty p le a s . W

as hi ngt on v. Sobi na , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.