Bennett v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24384
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Bennett was CFO of Bennett Financial Group and was convicted on multiple counts across two trials for securities, bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction, and perjury.
- He appealed § 2255 claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the second trial; issues were limited to two certificated matters on remand.
- District court conducted an evidentiary hearing on remand per a Jacobson remand from this Court.
- Counsel allegedly advised Bennett of his right to testify and Bennett’s sole control over whether to testify, and allegedly failed to object to mens rea jury instructions.
- The district court found Bennett’s testimony on those issues incredible and credited trial counsel’s testimony; Bennett’s COA was limited to two issues.
- This Court on appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of the § 2255 motion and denied expansion of the COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel render ineffective assistance by overriding Bennett’s right to testify? | Bennett claims counsel overruled his desire to testify at the second trial. | Counsel advised Bennett of his rights and Bennett chose not to testify; memory of a specific discussion is contested. | No; Bennett failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice. |
| Did failure to object to mens rea instructions prejudice Bennett’s right to testify? | Failure to object affected jury understanding and Bennett’s ability to testify. | Even without objections, the mens rea instructions were not prejudicial; appeal on plain-error grounds failed. | No; no reasonable probability of a different outcome had objections been made. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Artuz, 124 F.3d 73 (2d Cir.1997) (duty of counsel to inform defendant of right to testify; decision within defendant’s control; Strickland standard applied)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to testify is fundamental to due process)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review standard for prejudice to substantial rights)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (credibility and factual findings receive deference on review)