Opinion ID: 146638
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure To Investigate Other Impeachment Evidence Against Tagaban

Text: Finally, Munoz argues that Bergmann was ineffective in failing to turn up two sources of impeachment evidence against Tagaban: the pre-sentence reports from his prior convictions (although the convictions themselves were brought out during cross-examination) and the testimony of George McCay as to a prior inconsistent statement by Tagaban. Munoz argues that the pre-sentence reports from Tagaban's prior convictions reveal that Tagaban has a pattern of shifting blame onto others. One report, in a domestic violence case, states that Tagaban had claimed that his wife had attacked him first. Another report, in a drug case, states that Tagaban had claimed that the drugs found on his person belonged to someone else. Had Bergmann located these reports, Munoz argues, he would have been able to demonstrate Tagaban's modus operandi of . . . always shift[ing] blame, and would thereby have been able to undermine Tagaban's credibility. We disagree. First, once again, because Bergmann did not testify, we do not actually know that Bergmann failed to locate the reports, rather than simply deciding, after locating and examining them, that they would not be of use. This would have been a reasonable professional judgment, as the two facially unrelated incidents described in the reports do not demonstrate a particularly compelling modus operandi, and would thus have been of only marginal utility in impeaching Tagaban's truthfulness. For that same reasonand because the reports have no bearing on the credibility of Delaney, Frizzell, and Georgeeven if Bergmann did not locate the reports, his failure to introduce them at trial did not prejudice Munoz. Additionally, Munoz points to the triple-hearsay affidavit of a San Diego investigator averring that he had spoken to a man named George McCay, who is currently incarcerated for marijuana importation and who claims to have met both Tagaban and Munoz in a California jail. According to the investigator's affidavit, Mr. McCay. . . recalls Mr. Tagaban telling him that Mr. Munoz was innocent. However, yet again, because neither Bergmann nor Munoz testified at the hearing, there is no basis in the record to conclude that Bergmann actually failed to locate McCay. It is equally plausible that Bergmann knew of McCay but felt that placing an incarcerated drug importer on the stand to testify on Munoz's behalf in a drug trial would associate Munoz with drugs in the minds of the jury, and that this would hurt Munoz more than McCay's testimony would help him. This would not be an unreasonable judgment, because McCay's hearsay testimony could have been used only for the limited purpose of impeaching Tagaban by prior inconsistent statement, not for the truth of the matter assertedi.e., that Munoz was actually was innocent. See Fed.R.Evid. 613, 802. For this same reasonand because McCay's testimony could not have been used to impeach the credibility of Delaney, Frizzell, or Georgeeven if Bergmann did not locate McCay, this did not prejudice Munoz.