2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-18-2010

USA v. Gary McGahee

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3559

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Gary McGahee" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1696.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1696
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-3559

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Appellant.

v.

GARY MCGAHEE, a/k/a CASBAH SALAAM,

a/k/a CAS, a/k/a CUZ

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D. C. No. 2-03-cr-00788-001)

District Judge: Hon. Ronald L. Buckwalter

 

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on July 16, 2009

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 18, 2010)

 

O P I N I O N

 

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

The United States appeals from the District Court’s order vacating the conviction

and sentence of Gary McGahee. The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §
2

3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court found that

McGahee’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, which impelled the

court to vacate McGahee’s conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) and grant

him a new trial. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will describe them

only as necessary to explain our decision. For the reasons discussed below, we will

affirm. 

The government argues that the district court erred in finding McGahee’s trial

counsel ineffective. We review de novo the district court’s determination that McGahee’s

counsel was ineffective. See United States v. McCoy, 410 F.3d 124, 131 n.1 (3d Cir.

2005). Under the familiar standard, a defendant must satisfy two steps to establish a

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s

performance was deficient.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). This

requires showing the counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness.” Id. at 688. “Second, the defendant must show that the deficient

performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. at 687. That is, “there is a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding

would have been different.” Id. at 694. The government argues only the second step,

viz., prejudice, on appeal.

The district court did not err in finding McGahee prejudiced by his counsel’s

failure to call alibi witnesses to testify on McGahee’s behalf. The evidence against
3

McGahee came from Gary Oliver and Gloria Hoffman, both of whom suffered from

nontrivial credibility issues. Oliver, among other things, delayed coming forward to the

police, changed stories about what happened on the night in question, and received

sentencing benefits by disclosing McGahee’s name. And Hoffman had an extensive

criminal record and was concerned that she would receive a longer sentence if she did not

cooperate with the government. The testimony of the three alibi witnesses, one of whom

is a police officer, when measured against Oliver’s and Hoffman’s questionable

testimony, could have been sufficient to create reasonable doubt. See United States v.

Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 113 (1976) (“[I]f the verdict is already of questionable validity,

additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a

reasonable doubt.”). Simply put, after weighing the credibility of the three alibi witnesses

against Oliver’s and Hoffman’s testimony, we agree with the District Court that there is a

reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different with the three alibi

witnesses’ testimony. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.