Opinion ID: 4527002
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Witnesses

Text: Jackson also argues that Swift failed to conduct an adequate factual investigation and, specifically, asserts that Swift provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to subpoena Jackson’s witnesses, Jamison and Hudson. Although strategic choices made after investigation are virtually unchallengeable, choices “resulting from lack of diligence in preparation and investigation are not protected by the presumption in favor of counsel.” Armstrong v. Kemna, 534 F.3d 857, 864 (8th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). For example, in Armstrong, the habeas petitioner succeeded because he showed that his counsel fell below the reasonably competent standard. In that case, counsel failed to subpoena witnesses even though counsel was skeptical that the witnesses would even show up because the witnesses would not answer phone calls. Id. at 865. Similar to Armstrong, Swift did fail to subpoena both witnesses, but unlike Armstrong, Swift regularly communicated with both witnesses, and Jamison attended the majority of Jackson’s trial. No evidence has shown that counsel had knowledge either witness would not appear. However, even assuming that Swift’s performance was deficient, Jackson fails to show how Swift’s failure to have these two witnesses testify prejudiced him. In Armstrong, this court had to remand for the district court to determine what testimony the witnesses would have given at trial. Id. at 866–68. But, in the current case, Swift explained the testimony that would have been presented by both Jamison and Hudson. Through Jamison and Hudson’s testimonies, Jackson hoped to prove that the money found in his house was for a food truck instead of a drug conspiracy and that McKenzie had been using Jackson’s phone to make drug deals. Further, Jackson believed the testimonies would show that he only collected drug money to help McKenzie’s family after McKenzie’s death. -7- We agree with the district court: “The case against Jackson was formidable.” Order at 11, Jackson v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00267-SMR (S.D. Iowa Nov. 14, 2018), ECF No. 5. Dawson and several other witnesses linked Jackson to the drug conspiracy. In addition, phone records and text messages showed contact between Jackson and Dawson many times, and Jackson identified himself in some of these conversations. Officers also found the phones at Jackson’s residence during a search of the residence and found Jackson hiding in the closet during the same search. As to McKenzie, the messages from Jackson’s phone continued after McKenzie’s death in December 2014. And, testimony about the food truck would easily have been rebutted by the government’s evidence showing that the money found in Jackson’s house was connected to a drug transaction a few days earlier. The quantity of evidence against Jackson shows that he was not prejudiced by Swift’s failure to subpoena the two witnesses. Swift’s failure to subpoena the witnesses was not ineffective assistance of counsel because Jackson has failed to show “a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial would have been different absent the alleged deficiency of counsel’s performance.” United States v. Robinson, 301 F.3d 923, 925–26 (8th Cir. 2002).