Opinion ID: 790576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 11 Prejudice exists if the record is so deficient that it is impossible for the appellate court to determine if the district court has committed reversible error. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Weisser has failed to make the requisite showing. 12 Weisser claims that without three specific exhibits his appellate counsel is unable to determine whether trial counsel provided effective assistance. First is the Power Tools file, a record of over 1400 chat sessions between Weisser and individuals other than Skaterboard. 3 Second are the recordings of two telephone calls between Weisser and Agent Rice as Skaterboard, one of which was played for the jury. Third is the record of chats between Weisser and Lonelykid, an AOL user who identified himself as a child, and with whom Weisser engaged in sexually explicit online conversation. Weisser argues that each of the three exhibits contained potentially exculpatory material, which trial counsel may have been able to put to better use, and without which trial counsel's effectiveness cannot be assessed. 4 As a result, Weisser contends, he cannot know whether he has a viable ineffective assistance claim and thus his right to appeal has been prejudiced. 13 We acknowledge that inability to raise an ineffective assistance claim due to gaps in the record may support a claim of specific prejudice. See Todd, 287 F.3d at 1163-64. But, as we explain below, Weisser's own argument reveals that even if these exhibits were available, he would not have a colorable claim of ineffective assistance. Their absence therefore cannot prejudice his right to appeal. 14 The well-known standard for ineffective assistance claims is high. A defendant must (1) show that counsel's performance was deficient and fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) affirmatively prove prejudice, by demonstrating that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-89, 693-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-65, 2067-68, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-95, 697-98 (1984). Under the first inquiry, there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct [was] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Strategic or tactical decisions usually fall within that range. See id. at 689, 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 113 (2d Cir.1999); Trapnell v. United States, 725 F.2d 149, 155 (2d Cir.1983). As for the second inquiry, failure to show sufficient prejudice will doom an ineffective assistance claim, even where counsel has committed serious error, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, particularly where the government's case is strong, see, e.g., Strouse v. Leonardo, 928 F.2d 548, 556 (2d Cir.1991). 15 Under Strickland, it is plain to us that Weisser would not have a viable ineffective assistance claim even if the exhibits had not been destroyed. For example, Weisser contends that both the Power Tools file and the Lonelykid transcripts would have demonstrated that adults sometimes pretend to be children on the internet. But the undisputed fact that some adults pose as boys on the internet would not have said anything about Weisser's intent as to Skaterboard. Even were the exhibits available, we would conclude with little difficulty that trial counsel's failure to have emphasized this point was hardly objectively unreasonable. 16 Similarly empty is Weisser's claim with regard to the missing Agent Rice tapes, of which the second was played for the jury. In their absence, Weisser contends that his appellate counsel is unable to determine whether trial counsel erred in failing to play the first tape, and whether trial counsel made appropriate use of the second tape. We easily dismiss the suggestion that an ineffective assistance claim could be based on trial counsel's decision to play one tape rather than the other; such decisions are clearly strategic. See Diaz, 176 F.3d at 113; Trapnell, 725 F.2d at 155. We also reject Weisser's attempt to argue that an ineffective assistance claim could be based on the way trial counsel use[d] the second tape; we are simply unpersuaded that the manner in which trial counsel chose to play the tape, plainly a strategic decision, could be deemed objectively unreasonable. Once again, Weisser's own argument makes clear that even if the tapes were available, he would be unable to mount an ineffective assistance claim based on counsel's use of them. 17 There is a more fundamental weakness in Weisser's missing-exhibits argument. Weisser acknowledges that any exculpatory evidence that might have been gleaned from these exhibits would only have played a corroborative role. In other words, the exhibits would have provided only limited support for the defense advanced by Weisser's own testimony. For example, the Power Tools file and the Lonelykid transcripts might have bolstered indirectly Weisser's claim that he did not believe Skaterboard was a child by indicating that Weisser knew that adults sometimes impersonate children on the internet. Similarly, the tapes of Agent Rice might have aided Weisser's defense if they clearly supported his contention that Rice sounded like an adult woman. But, as Weisser's own claims make clear, none of these exhibits would have been central to his defense. They would instead have offered only tangential support for the claims Weisser and his counsel presented. 18 We are confident that counsel's failure, if any, 5 to make better use of the missing exhibits did not rise to the level of deficient performance that a defendant must show under Strickland. Most of the exhibits at issue were before the jury, and we cannot see how counsel's treatment of the exhibits could be deemed objectively unreasonable. 19 Similarly remote is the possibility that trial counsel's alleged misuse of the exhibits could have prejudiced Weisser's defense under Strickland 's second inquiry. The transcripts of Weisser's chat sessions amply demonstrated his sexual appetite for young boys generally, and for Skaterboard in particular. Even if we were to accept Weisser's speculation that the missing Power Tools file contained evidence corroborating his testimony that he enjoyed exposing adults who pretended to be children online, the jury had ample evidence from which to conclude that defendant's trip to New York was not for that purpose. The government's account was confirmed by the fact that Weisser was waiting for Skaterboard when he was arrested, surrounded by the items that he had promised to bring to New York for Skaterboard. The jury had before it a mountain of evidence supporting Weisser's guilt. Any plausible error by trial counsel with regard to these few exhibits simply does not undermine confidence in the [verdict.] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 20 In sum, even if the missing exhibits were available, trial counsel's treatment of them would not support an ineffective assistance claim. Therefore, their destruction has not prejudiced Weisser's ability to bring such a claim on appeal and accordingly does not warrant relief.