Matthew Hale v. United States, 710 F.3d 711

Hale led the Creativity Movement, formerly the World Church of the Creator, and was convicted for soliciting a crime of violence and obstructing justice in a related case.
The Movement is racist and espouses extremist beliefs; its founder promoted contempt for various groups in The White Man’s Bible and related materials.
Hale sought 28 U.S.C. §2255 relief challenging his convictions; the district court denied relief after comprehensive analysis.
A principal appellate contention concerns denying Hale the right to convene voir dire outside his presence to address pretrial publicity tied to Hale’s support for Benjamin Smith.
Hale also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, including missteps on jury selection and defense strategy regarding the Evola instruction; the district court addressed these and this court affirms.
The court affirms the judgment, rejecting Hale’s collateral challenges and concluding no constitutional error necessitates relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venire questioning outside Hale’s presence violated his rights	Hale argues lack of express consent tainted voir dire	The judge’s method aided candid responses; consent could be inferred	Default bars relief; no reversible error
Whether trial counsel’s handling of peremptory challenges violated Batson	Defense should have used race-based strikes	Batson applies to both sides; race-based striking is improper	Batson governs; Hale cannot show ineffective assistance based on this strategy
Whether defense strategy re Evola and alleged admission was ineffective	Counsel should have conceded Hale’s instruction to kill but not the target	Strategic choice post-deliberation; reasonable under Strickland	Strategic trial choice not ineffective; defense sustained
Overall effectiveness and sufficiency of collateral attack	Convictions should be set aside due to constitutional errors	Record supports validity of trial and defense strategy	Judgment affirmed

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (race-based challenges impermissible; defense cannot rely on racial discrimination)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1992) (racial discrimination by defense improper; Batson applies to all actors)
Winston v. Boatwright, 649 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2011) (racially motivated challenges may constitute ineffective assistance)
Rodriguez v. United States, 67 F.3d 1312 (7th Cir. 1995) (consent to voir dire outside defendant’s presence requires defendant consent on record)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (self-representation and decision-making limits; defendant must be allowed to participate)
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1982) (need for cause-and-prejudice showing for collateral review)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (U.S. 1982) (procedural default rules for collateral review; not excused by actual innocence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice; strategic decisions given deference)
United States v. Lefkow, No. 06-969 (7th Cir. 2006) (7th Cir. 2006) (reference to earlier conviction and injunction context)