Gobern v. United States
1:18-cv-12411
| S.D.N.Y. | Aug 25, 2021Background
- Petitioner Alexio Gobern was convicted after trial in S.D.N.Y. criminal case No. 15-CR-796 and appealed; the Second Circuit affirmed.
- Before trial, defense moved to suppress evidence seized from Gobern’s cell phone; the Government represented it would not use that phone evidence and defense counsel withdrew the suppression hearing as moot.
- Gobern later filed a § 2255 petition to vacate his conviction; the district court denied it in an 11/4/20 Opinion & Order.
- Gobern moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to reconsider, arguing (1) reliance on United States v. Nejad was undermined by subsequent developments in that case and (2) the Government in fact used phone-derived evidence at trial and counsel was ineffective for withdrawing the suppression motion.
- The court applied the strict Rule 59(e) standard, found Gobern raised no intervening change in controlling law or new evidence, rejected his factual assertions as speculative and contradicted by the record, and denied reconsideration.
- The court also declined to take judicial notice of prosecutorial misconduct in an unrelated case and found no manifest injustice in Gobern’s proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nejad’s post-op developments create intervening change undermining reliance on that case | Nejad’s subsequent vacatur and government disclosures show Nejad is no longer good law and undermine the court’s reliance | Court: Nejad’s later developments do not change controlling law; the legal propositions cited (purpose of suppression; mootness when gov’t will not use evidence) remain good law | Denied — no intervening change of controlling law |
| Whether the Government used phone evidence at trial (so suppression was not moot) | Gobern: testimony of Pizarro and Pichardo and other trial evidence shows phone evidence was used to link him to the conspiracy | Court: Plaintiff’s claim is speculative, unsupported, and contradicted by the record (Gobern was charged before phone seizure) | Denied — no proof phone evidence was used |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for withdrawing the suppression motion (failure to hold suppression hearing) | Gobern: counsel should have proceeded to suppression hearing to show indictment was based on phone evidence and then move to dismiss | Court: This rehashes prior arguments; even if indictment relied on tainted evidence the guilty verdict cures grand-jury/indictment defects; no prejudice shown | Denied — not a proper Rule 59 basis; no prejudice shown |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct (like Nejad) occurred warranting relief or judicial notice | Gobern: analogizes to Nejad, asks court to take judicial notice of government misconduct and AUSA misconduct in this case | Court: No evidence of similar misconduct here; taking judicial notice of unrelated case would not change result; declines to take notice of misconduct by this AUSA absent findings | Denied — no manifest injustice, no judicial notice granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nejad, 436 F. Supp. 3d 707 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (court’s earlier opinion relied upon regarding suppression-motion mootness)
- United States v. Nejad, 487 F. Supp. 3d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (later opinion criticizing government disclosure failures)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (purpose of suppression is exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle to relitigate issues or present new arguments)
- In re Beacon Associates Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 697 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (standards for reconsideration)
- In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (delay in filing suppression motion not prejudicial where government represented it would not use the statements)
- United States v. Ashraf, [citation="320 F. App'x 26"] (2d Cir. 2009) (guilty verdict cures defects in grand jury indictment)