119 F.4th 1064
6th Cir.2024Background
- Jonathon Neuhard was convicted by jury of producing, receiving, and possessing child pornography involving his two minor nieces.
- His defense at trial proposed that other individuals with access to the location and devices were responsible, not Neuhard.
- Trial counsel, Korn, investigated but decided against introducing evidence of Neuhard’s autism, fearing it might prejudice the jury.
- During trial, a government agent referenced polygraphs of other suspects, prompting limiting instructions but not a mistrial.
- The Sixth Circuit previously affirmed Neuhard’s conviction and rejected claims of trial error on direct appeal.
- Neuhard then sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel; the district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Neuhard's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel's failure to present autism evidence | Korn inadequately investigated/presented Neuhard's autism at trial | Korn thoroughly investigated and made a reasonable strategic choice | Counsel was not ineffective; investigation and decision reasonable |
| Failure to immediately request evidentiary hearing on polygraph comment | Immediate hearing would show agent’s polygraph reference was deliberate, warranting mistrial | Polygraph reference was inadvertent, limiting instruction was adequate | No prejudice; unlikely outcome would differ if evidentiary hearing held |
| Appellate counsel's failure to appeal mistrial denial | Appellate counsel should have appealed denial of mistrial over polygraph | Counsel reasonably selected stronger arguments for appeal | Not ineffective; omitted claim not clearly stronger than those raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Counsel’s performance must fall below an objective standard and prejudice the result to be ineffective)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (Appellate counsel need not raise every nonfrivolous claim, but should select the most promising)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (Establishes a highly deferential standard for judging counsel's performance)