Casiano-Jimenez v. United States, 817 F.3d 816

José Luis Casiano-Jiménez was convicted in 2009 of conspiring to smuggle narcotics by ship; he and other crew members presented a joint "lack of knowledge" defense through a single expert; no defendants testified.
On direct appeal this court affirmed the convictions; one judge dissented as to sufficiency of evidence against Casiano-Jiménez and one other defendant.
Casiano-Jiménez filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition claiming trial counsel Frank Inserni never told him he had a right to testify and that the decision belonged to him.
At an evidentiary hearing both the petitioner and Inserni testified that Inserni never advised the petitioner of the right to testify; lawyers for defendants had held a group meeting in which counsel decided it "would not be advisable" for any defendant to testify.
The district court rejected the §2255 claim as "inherently incredible" and denied relief; this Court granted a COA limited to the right-to-testify ineffective-assistance claim and heard the appeal.

Issue	Casiano-Jiménez's Argument	Government/Defense Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel provided constitutionally adequate performance by failing to inform petitioner of his right to testify	Inserni never told him he had the right and counsel unilaterally decided none would testify; no focused lawyer-client discussion occurred	The group meeting among counsel and defendants sufficed to notify petitioner and reflected a strategic decision against testimony	Counsel's failure to inform petitioner was objectively deficient; the group meeting did not satisfy counsel's duty to advise and obtain the defendant's informed decision
Whether petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's omission (Strickland prejudice)	Petitioner would have testified to facts (no prior relationship with captain, hired as able-bodied seaman, became "first officer" only aboard ship, no knowledge of drugs) that were more exculpatory than the expert's hypothetical testimony and could have affected the verdict	Petitioner's testimony would have been essentially the same as the expert's; no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Prejudice shown: petitioner's firsthand denial of knowledge could reasonably have tipped the scales; conviction vacated and case remanded for entry of relief

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (defendant's right to testify is fundamental to a fair adversary process)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (self-representation and related rights underpin defendant autonomy)
Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (right to testify cannot be waived by counsel alone; counsel must enable an informed choice)
Teague v. 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992) (ineffective-assistance vehicle for right-to-testify claims and counsel's advisory duties)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Angulo-Hernández, 565 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 2009) (direct-appeal decision addressing sufficiency of evidence in the same underlying prosecution)