Opinion ID: 53571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The container.

Text: ... Q. And the reference to the word it, context in the second row refers to what? A. The container with the marijuana. Exh. 8 at 1267. The government introduced phone logs, which tracked phone numbers called by McCleod, on and around the drug smuggling operation dates. For example, McCleod testified that a phone number on the log belonged to 4 Franklin, and, on that certain phone call, McCleod was setting up a smuggling event. The government also relied upon the testimony of two port security guards who were involved in the smuggling operation. One of the security guards testified to a number of drug smuggling transactions in which he and Franklin were both involved. Franklin’s evidence included a number of witnesses. Vernala Turnquest, an electrician, testified that he worked on a number of projects with Franklin for some of the co-defendants in the case. Gloria Jean Franklin Morris, Franklin’s mother, testified that her son was a handyman and she often loaned him money. Latrice Kertrina Franklin, Franklin’s wife, testified that her husband did air conditioning and landscape work for McCleod. She received many late-night phone calls from McCleod’s wife, who was trying to locate her husband. Franklin would then start making phone calls to try and track McCleod down. Franklin cross-examined the government witnesses, and argued that the primary government witnesses, those who implicated Franklin, perjured themselves in an attempt to gain reduced sentences. Franklin replied that an evidentiary hearing should be granted so his testimony could be examined for credibility and a determination could be made on whether such testimony would have influenced the final outcome of his trial. 5 Franklin argued that the evidence was not overwhelming and that the court could not reach a conclusion on the impact of his testimony without hearing and evaluating it. The magistrate judge issued a report, recommending that Franklin’s § 2255 motion be denied. The magistrate judge found that Franklin failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. The magistrate judge explainded that: (1) the evidence against Franklin was strong, based upon the testimony of co-conspirators, phone records, and taped phone conversations; and, (2) Franklin’s attorney presented a “vigorous, comprehensive defense, forcefully challenging the credibility of the testifying co-conspirators during crossexamination;” R1-20 at 4, and (3) the defense witnesses provided explanations for the many phone calls between McCleod and Franklin. The magistrate judge concluded by stating: Franklin does not proffer what his testimony would have been, other than to assert he would have presented his version of the facts. After painstakingly reviewing the transcript from this lengthy trial, the movant’s assertion that had he testified, “the realm of probability that he would have been acquitted would have increased exponentially” notwithstanding, the undersigned concludes that there is no reasonably probability that his testimony would have resulted in an acquittal. Id. at 5 (citing R1-3 at 19) (alterations omitted). 6 Franklin filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, arguing that the magistrate judge erroneously decided that the evidence supporting his conviction was overwhelming, making his testimony meaningless. He claimed that his contention was not that his testimony would have made a difference, rather that his constitutional right to testify was violated, which required that his convictions be vacated, irrespective of the impact his testimony would have had. He argued that there was no evidence in the record that would disprove his contention that his attorney failed to inform him of his right to testify. Moreover, Franklin asserted, the court could not consider the impact of his testimony absent an evidentiary hearing. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and denied Franklin’s § 2255 motion. The district court then denied Franklin’s motion for a COA, finding that he had failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. We, however, granted a COA on “[w]hether the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to inform Franklin of his right to testify at trial.” R30 at 2.