Opinion ID: 205890
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure To Object to Certain Hearsay Testimony

Text: Orr first alleges that Cohn rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain hearsay testimony of government witness, Mark Anderson concerning Orr's actual place of residence. At trial, Orr hotly contested where he resided during the relevant time periods. Specifically, as Orr explains in his brief, [w]here Mr. Orr resided was very important because of the fact that the contraband that supports many of the counts in the Indictment were found at the residence at 130[5] Washington Street where Mr. Orr was claiming he did not live. Orr's defense suggested that for most of the relevant time period, including on September 14, 2006, when Burlington PD executed the first search warrant at 1305 Washington Street, he resided in one of Anderson's apartment units located at 803 Summer Avenue. Orr reasserted this position at the evidentiary hearing held by the district court on the new trial motion. Contrary to Orr's position, Anderson testified at trial that he d[idn't] think that [Orr] ever moved in to 803 Summer and only stayed there some. In the portion of testimony to which Orr now takes exception as inadmissible hearsay, Anderson explained that he formed his suspicion that Orr did not physically reside in the apartment [j]ust from talking to the other tenants. Orr contends that counsel's failure to object to this testimony constituted an error fatal to his defense that 1305 Washington Street was not his actual residence. Anderson's statement is hearsay as it clearly is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). Nevertheless, Cohn's failure to object to one questionWhy do you think that [Orr] never resided at the apartment that he rented?that, on its face, does not elicit a hearsay answer, is not a performance deficiency so serious that [he] was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that counsel's error met the first prong of Strickland, it was not prejudicial under Strickland's second prong. Evidence tending to show that Orr did in fact reside with Pfaltzgraff at 1305 Washington Street was substantial. During their execution of the first search warrant, authorities discovered, among other things, baggies of the type commonly used in drug distribution bearing Orr's fingerprints, Orr's state-issued identification card listing 1305 Washington as his home address, and 2005 income-tax returns listing the same. Added to this, Orr's probation records at the time likewise listed 1305 Washington as his home address, and myriad witnesses testified to arranging or consummating crack purchases from Orr at the Washington Street home. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no `reasonable probability that, but for' Cohn's failure to object to Anderson's hearsay testimony, `the result of the proceeding would have been different....' Rice, 449 F.3d at 897 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052).