Opinion ID: 45038
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Seek a Dismissal of the Indictment

Text: To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, Le must show that his counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). Here, we conclude that Le failed to establish prejudice, and therefore, do 2 We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under a clear error standard. United States v. Walker, 198 F.3d 811, 813 (11th Cir. 1999). 10 not evaluate counsel’s performance.3 To establish prejudice, Le must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. Thus, here, Le must show a reasonable probability that a motion to dismiss the indictment based on Bean’s interference would have been granted. See, e.g., Zeigler v. Crosby, 345 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003). Therefore, in order to analyze whether Le was prejudiced by counsel’s inaction, we must examine the merits of Le’s underlying constitutional claim to determine whether a motion to dismiss the indictment would have been successful. In United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court analyzed whether a dismissal of the indictment was an appropriate remedy for an intentional violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel where the defendant “demonstrated no prejudice of any kind, either transitory or permanent, to the ability of her counsel to provide adequate representation . . . .” 449 U.S. 361, 366, 101 S. Ct. 665, 669 (1981). The Supreme Court concluded that, “absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is 3 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069 (“If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.”); see also Holladay v. Haley, 209 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Because both parts of the test must be satisfied in order to show a violation of the Sixth Amendment, the court need not address the performance prong if the defendant cannot meet the prejudice prong . . . .”). 11 plainly inappropriate, even though the violation may have been deliberate.” Id. at 365, 101 S. Ct. at 668. Therefore, even if we assume arguendo that Le’s constitutional rights were violated by Bean’s interference with the attorney-client relationship, Le would not have been entitled to a dismissal of the indictment unless he could have shown that the interference prejudiced his defense. Id.; see also United States v. Sims, 845 F.2d 1564, 1569 (11th Cir. 1988) (noting that dismissal of the indictment for an alleged Sixth Amendment violation is not warranted absent a showing of “demonstrable prejudice”); United States v. Bell, 776 F.2d 965, 972 (11th Cir. 1985) (same).4 As the Supreme Court has noted, a Sixth Amendment claim of interference with counsel is much weaker where none of the state’s evidence is derived from the improper government intrusions into the attorney-client relationship. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 554, 97 S. Ct. 837, 843 (1977). Bean did not testify at Le’s trial and none of the information Bean provided to the F.B.I. was used against Le at trial. Accordingly, Le cannot show that Bean’s interference directly prejudiced Le’s defense at trial. Thus, Le is left to argue that Bean’s actions indirectly harmed Le’s defense by causing Le to mistrust Smith and to 4 Le argues that prejudice to his defense should be presumed in this case because the government’s interference into the attorney-client relationship was intentional. This argument is precluded based on Morrison, which requires a showing of demonstrable prejudice even for a deliberate violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights, and we do not discuss it further. 12 make an ill-advised decision to go to trial rather than plead guilty. Le has failed to establish that Bean impeded his defense in this manner for several reasons. First, Bean’s interference into Le’s relationship with counsel ended almost four months before trial. As established at the evidentiary hearing, Le discovered that Bean was a government informant sometime before Bean left the FDC on August 18, 1999, almost four months before Le’s trial began on December 6, 1999. After realizing that Bean had been manipulating him, Le had no reason to continue relying on Bean’s bogus legal advice. In fact, Le immediately told Smith that he had been communicating with an informant, and according to both Le and Smith, their relationship improved thereafter. During this time, Smith filed two motions to suppress, represented Le at the suppression hearing, filed an alibi motion, and submitted writs for the production of five prisoner witnesses. In short, Le and Smith had almost four months to prepare a defense – or to negotiate a guilty plea – unimpeded by any interference into their attorney-client relationship. Second, we find wholly unpersuasive Le’s argument that Bean’s interference prevented him from pleading guilty. Contrary to Le’s claim that it was Bean who convinced him to go to trial, the record indicates that Le always intended to go to trial. Smith testified that throughout his representation of Le (which notably began 13 before Le met Bean and continued after Le realized Bean was an informant), Le always wanted to go to trial and never suggested otherwise. It appears that Le’s strategy was to go to trial and perjure himself in order to cast doubt on his postarrest confession to the F.B.I. In addition, because Le was not present during the home invasion and the victims could not testify about his involvement, Le called his co-conspirator Tommy Ha to testify at trial that Le had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the robbery. Le’s strategy failed, however, and Le now concedes his guilt and that he testified falsely at trial. Finally, we note that there were significant legal issues about the interstate commerce nexus requirement of Le’s crimes that Le raised at trial and on direct appeal, see Le, 256 F.3d at 1231-37, and these issues may have further emboldened Le’s decision to go to trial and attempt to obtain an acquittal. Given that Le learned of Bean’s duplicity almost four months before trial, Smith’s testimony that Le always intended to go to trial, and Le’s concession that he perjured himself at trial, we find no error in the district court’s findings that Bean did not influence Le’s decision to go to trial and that Le was not prejudiced by the government’s intrusion into his attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, Le cannot demonstrate prejudice from Smith’s decision not to seek a dismissal of the indictment, and therefore, we reject his claim of ineffective assistance of 14 counsel.5