Opinion ID: 4527002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Treimer’s Pretrial Representation

Text: Jackson alleges that Treimer failed to engage in any pretrial investigation, including failing to secure defense witnesses and documentary evidence that could have challenged aspects of the government’s case. However, Jackson does not identify any specific witnesses or evidence that Treimer failed to uncover. Further, our job as a reviewing court “is not to consider the attorney error in isolation, but instead to assess how the error fits into the big picture of what happened at trial.” Holder v. United States, 721 F.3d 979, 987 (8th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). Treimer withdrew as counsel over two months before the trial, and Jackson even admitted that he and Swift had planned a sound trial defense strategy. Jackson “has not offered any alternative theory of the case under which he would have been found not guilty based on” Treimer’s role in his case. Id. at 990. Because of this, Jackson fails to show that Treimer’s representation prejudiced his case. Jackson alleges that an evidentiary hearing might reveal how Treimer was ineffective. An evidentiary hearing would only be helpful if there were evidence to test, but Jackson has neither shown what evidence would be introduced nor how it would demonstrate prejudice caused by Treimer’s representation. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to Jackson’s claim that Treimer was constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct adequate pretrial investigations. -6-