Nejad v. Attorney General
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13677
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ali Nejad was convicted in Fulton County, GA, for multiple sexual assaults and sentenced to 35 years; he did not testify at trial.
- Post-trial, Nejad argued his counsel was ineffective for refusing to let him testify and failing to inform him he could choose to testify over counsel’s advice.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found credible the prosecutor’s testimony that the trial judge had, during unrecorded portions of the trial, advised Nejad that the decision to testify was his alone.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed (finding counsel deficient and prejudice shown); the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the trial court’s factual finding and rejected ineffective-assistance relief.
- On federal habeas, the district court granted relief, finding the state-fact finding unreasonable and ordering a retrial; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the state court’s credibility and factual determinations were reasonable under AEDPA and Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not informing Nejad he could testify | Nejad: counsel refused to let him testify and never told him he could overrule counsel — deficient performance and prejudicial | State: even if counsel erred, trial judge had advised Nejad (per trial-court finding based on prosecutor’s testimony), so no Strickland prejudice | No ineffective assistance — state courts reasonably found judge advised Nejad and applied Strickland reasonably |
| Whether the state trial transcript is conclusively accurate | Nejad: transcript contains no colloquy and thus proves judge didn’t advise him | State: transcript was incomplete; off-the-record pauses and missing pages justified hearing and supplementing record | Transcript not dispositive; trial court reasonably found record incomplete |
| Standard of federal habeas review of state factual findings under AEDPA | Nejad: district court should set aside state finding as unreasonable | State: AEDPA requires deference; credibility findings stand absent clear and convincing evidence | State factual findings (credibility of prosecutor) are entitled to deference and were not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether prosecutor’s testimony was too vague to prove the judge told Nejad he could overrule counsel | Nejad: prosecutor’s memory lacked precise wording and was self-interested and unreliable | State: prosecutor’s testimony, read with the questions asked and other record points, reasonably supports the trial-court finding | Prosecutor’s testimony reasonably read as confirming the judge told Nejad the decision belonged to him; state courts reasonably credited it |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (defendant has a fundamental right to testify)
- Teague v. United States, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992) (defendant’s right to testify cannot be waived by counsel)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (federal habeas must presume state-court factual findings correct absent clear and convincing evidence)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (federal relief requires showing state-court decision was unreasonable, not merely incorrect)
- Nichols v. Butler, 953 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1992) (defendant’s testimony is uniquely significant; trial testimony allows jury to assess credibility)