DiMattina v. United States, 949 F. Supp. 2d 387

DiMattina was convicted of extortion and gun-use charges, sentenced to six years plus enhancements, and later pursued a pre-appeal §2255 collateral attack alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence.
Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered alibi evidence was denied as untimely and unpersuasive, with the court holding the evidence not genuinely new and not showing excusable neglect.
Trial counsel credibly testified they did not ignore an alibi and that a trial strategy focused on attacking the government witness’s credibility rather than pursuing a late alibi defense.
Section 2255 proceedings were conducted with hearings on ineffective assistance and, separately, on an actual innocence claim, yielding a denial of relief.
The court treated the §2255 motion as an unserialized collateral attack within a criminal matter, denying relief and concluding no substantial constitutional violations or actual innocence warranted relief.
The Second Circuit’s procedural posture allowed consideration of collateral claims prior to direct appeal, but the district court ultimately denied relief on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an alibi defense	DiMattina argues failure to pursue alibi violated Strickland	Meringolo and Geduldig testified no alibi was presented or discussed	No; strategic decisions were reasonable under Strickland
Whether the alibi evidence demonstrates actual innocence	DiMattina asserts new alibi evidence proves innocence	Alibi evidence is weak and unconvincing against credible trial testimony	No; evidence does not meet the high standard for actual innocence
Whether pre-direct appeal §2255 collateral attack is proper	§2255 should be entertained before direct appeal concludes	Temporary pre-appeal proceedings risk unfairness and complexity	Yes; district court appropriately addressed claims pre-appeal under controlling decisions

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (applies Strickland to guilty-plea scenarios)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (assumes but does not require freestanding innocence relief; sets high standard)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (discusses gateway and freestanding innocence standards; Schlup standard guidance)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (establishes the 'gateway' standard for actual innocence to reach defaulted claims)