Billie Allen v. United States, 829 F.3d 965

Allen was convicted in 1998 of armed bank robbery and related firearm/murder count; sentenced to death; death-penalty notice filed.
Before trial the district court, per 18 U.S.C. § 3432, disclosed venire names to counsel but the jurors in court were identified only by numbers; counsel and parties did not know which number matched which name during proceedings.
Jury selection proceeded using numbers; Allen was convicted and his convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Allen filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to object to empaneling an "anonymous" jury, and sought an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s reasons.
The district court denied relief; this court granted COA only on whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the anonymous-jury procedure.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed performance under Strickland and considered circuit precedent (notably Lee and Darden) about when a jury is "anonymous."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to empaneling an anonymous jury	Allen: numbering jurors without revealing which number matched which name made the jury anonymous and prejudiced him by implying dangerousness	Government: counsel reasonably relied on existing precedent (Lee/Darden); procedure was not constitutionally defective and no timely objection required	Counsel was not ineffective; failure to press a novel extension of circuit law was not constitutionally unreasonable
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to probe trial counsel's subjective reasons	Allen: district court should have held a hearing to examine counsel’s thought process	Government: Strickland is objective; no hearing needed when claim is inadequate on its face and precedent makes counsel’s conduct reasonable	No hearing required; objective reasonableness under precedent sufficed

United States v. Lee, 886 F.2d 998 (8th Cir.) (use of numbers not prejudicial where defendants had juror names)
United States v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507 (8th Cir. 1995) (jury is "anonymous" when judge refuses to disclose venire names to parties)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
New v. United States, 652 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2011) (failure to anticipate new law is not per se deficient performance)
Fields v. United States, 201 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir.) (same principle regarding not anticipating novel legal rules)
Brown v. United States, 311 F.3d 875 (8th Cir.) (no hearing required where counsel could not reasonably be expected to anticipate new legal developments)