Opinion ID: 2817710
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: England and Key

Text: Weaver alleges the district court erred by not finding trial counsel Primmer ineffective for “fail[ing] to determine whether Mr. Key and Mr. England were willing to testify” at trial “on Mr. Weaver’s behalf.” Weaver submitted affidavits signed in 2010 by England and Key, each of whom stated he willingly would have testified at trial, but Primmer had not contacted him or his lawyer about the matter. 2 The government did not need a certificate of appealability to bring this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(3). -4- At the § 2255 hearing, Primmer testified that before trial, Weaver told Primmer “the codefendants in this matter would like to testify on his behalf.” So on April 20, 2007, after England and Key had pled guilty and before Weaver’s trial, Primmer contacted Matthew Metzgar, England’s attorney, and Joseph Flannery, Key’s attorney, by email—because “[e]thically if somebody’s represented by a lawyer, [Primmer had] to first speak to their lawyer.” In the email, with subject heading “Ronald Weaver,” Primmer stated, I was notified by my client yesterday afternoon that some or all of your clients wish to testify on his behalf at his trial starting next week. I am not going to speak with any of your clients without permission. Could each of you comment on whether or not there is any accuracy to this or if I have permission to contact your client. That same day, Primmer filed an “Application for Maintenance of Prisoners” with the district court, stating Weaver told Primmer that England and Key wanted to testify on Weaver’s behalf and requesting England and Key be available to testify at trial on April 24, 2007. The district court ordered that both potential witnesses be available during the trial. Primmer testified that his “recollection is that at least one lawyer called [him] back and was adamant that his client wanted nothing to do with it and that [the lawyer] didn’t want to expose his client to obstruction of justice or perjury or other further harm than they already were facing,” and that none of the lawyers “indicated that their client was willing to testify.” Specifically, Primmer testified he met with Metzgar at the courthouse during Weaver’s trial, and Metzgar told Primmer that England “wasn’t willing to testify.” Similarly, Primmer stated Flannery informed Primmer in a phone call that Key would not testify. In both instances, Primmer stated he could “rely on [Metzgar’s and Flannery’s] professional representation[s] to [him],” and Primmer did not believe Metzgar and Flannery were lying because they were “honest people.” -5- Primmer further testified the lawyers’ responses to his email were commensurate with his experience as a defense lawyer, because “if you object to particular relevant conduct in your presentence report or if you testify in a manner that the court deems isn’t correct, you could lose acceptance of responsibility [credit at sentencing]. You could face obstruction of justice. Or you could face another separate indictment for . . . perjury.” Primmer concluded that for the testifying witness, “a bad situation gets very bad. . . . [A]lmost nothing good can come of it.” Nevertheless, Primmer stated “if either [England or Key] were willing to come into court and testify for Mr. Weaver, [Primmer] absolutely would have called them.” Metzgar testified he advised England not to testify at Weaver’s trial, and after that discussion “[England] wasn’t going to speak to Mr. Primmer.” Metzgar testified England did not tell him England wanted to testify on Weaver’s behalf. Flannery explained he advised Key not to testify for any proceeding, in part because of possible questions about an unrelated murder case. Flannery stated that he and Key “both agreed that he should not talk to anyone” because things “could have gotten a lot worse for [Key].” Flannery stated he communicated this to Primmer by telephone. Primmer took these refusals to mean that England and Key would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination should they be called to the witness stand. As the district court observed, Primmer did exactly what Weaver requested him to do—he investigated the possibility of England and Key testifying at trial. Primmer filed the application with the court to ensure England and Key, both prisoners, would be available to testify. Primmer emailed England’s and Key’s attorneys to inquire whether they would testify. Neither attorney responded positively to Primmer’s email. But Weaver suggests Primmer should have subpoenaed England and Key and then interviewed them outside the presence of the jury pursuant to Federal Rule of -6- Evidence 104(a), (c) as to whether each intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.3 See United States v. Campbell, 410 F.3d 456, 463 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing such a procedure). This would have required Primmer to doubt Metzgar’s and Flannery’s representations that their clients refused to testify, which Primmer himself believed was the reasonable course to take, because “nothing good [could] come of it” for England or Key. Weaver fails to rebut the “strong presumption,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, that Primmer acted reasonably when he investigated England’s and Key’s availability, was rebuffed by each co-defendant’s attorney, and in fact believed both England and Key had refused to testify for Weaver. Primmer made “strategic choices” based on “reasonable professional judgments support[ing] the limitations on investigation” and fulfilled his “duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Id. at 690-91.