Court Opinion

ID: 9757046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:15:43.366321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:34.358031
License: Public Domain

YEAGLEY, Associate Judge,
concurring in the result:
While I believe that justice in this case requires that a hearing be held on appellant’s motion, I do not want to imply by my concurrence that the opinion should be read as suggesting that relief in such cases is easily obtained by means of a collateral attack. Rather, I would emphasize the standard expressed by the circuit in Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 339-40, 379 F.2d 113, 116-17 (1967):
Although the cases are rare and extraordinary, it appears that an accused may obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if he shows both that there has been gross incompetence of counsel and that this has in effect blotted out the essence of a substantial defense either in the District Court or on appeal.
*3It would not be fruitful to attempt further delineation of the applicable standard by reference to generalities, except perhaps to say that a more powerful showing of Inadequacy is necessary to sustain a collateral attack than to warrant an order for new trial either by the District Court or by this court on direct appeal. [Footnotes omitted (emphasis supplied).]