Opinion ID: 659895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The First and Second Consolidated Sec. 2255 Motions

Text: 6 On July 10, 1989 and December 19, 1989, Douglas filed two Sec. 2255 motions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District before then-District Judge McLaughlin primarily alleging that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. Douglas was at this point represented by counsel different from those at trial or on direct appeal. After Judge McLaughlin consolidated the petitions, he considered and rejected a variety of allegations of ineffectiveness, including the following: (1) inadequate pre-trial preparation and investigation; (2) failure to call witnesses; (3) failure to communicate the substance of the indictment to Douglas; (4) failure to submit juror questionnaires prior to voir dire; (5) poor direct and cross-examination; (6) wrongfully advising Douglas to testify; and (7) ineffective performance at sentencing. Judge McLaughlin found that the performance of defense counsel was, in all regards, reasonable and adequate. The court dismissed the motion in its entirety on the merits, although it did not explicitly discuss issues other than those dealing with ineffective assistance. 7 This Court affirmed the judgment of Judge McLaughlin, again without a published opinion. See Douglas v. United States, 930 F.2d 911 (2d Cir.1991). The unpublished summary order indicates that Douglas was again represented by counsel, although Douglas made one additional argument pro se that Judge McLaughlin had not allowed him to file a supplementary pleading. In the order, this Court rejected the pro se argument, affirmed the judgment of Judge McLaughlin on the issues raised before him, and also rejected two new arguments made by counsel that trial counsel had been ineffective: (1) that the attorney's representation of a government witness created a conflict of interest; and (2) that the attorney's failure to challenge the validity of a search warrant constituted ineffective assistance. This Court found that those two arguments were not only meritless, but that they were also waived, because they had not been raised before the district court on either of the consolidated Sec. 2255 motions.