898 F. Supp. 2d 659
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Petitioners Juan and Luis Ramirez were convicted after a seven-week jury trial of RICO-VICAR, narcotics trafficking, robbery, assault, kidnapping, murder, interstate transportation of stolen goods, and firearms offenses.
- Luis Ramirez was sentenced to life imprisonment plus five years in January 2002; Juan Ramirez was sentenced to life plus forty-five years in April 2002.
- In 2003, the Ramirez defendants and Shirley Calcano appealed; the Second Circuit affirmed, then recalls Martinez for Crawford briefing, and affirmed again in 2005.
- Juan Ramirez timely filed a pro se §2255 motion in 2005; Luis Ramirez filed a pro se motion in 2007; both filed jointly via counsel in March 2010.
- Judge Ellis recommended denial of most claims but Juan Ramirez’s Crawford-related objection warranted reinstatement of his appeal; the court adopted Ellis’s recommendations except for that issue.
- The court denied the remaining claims and declined to issue a certificate of appealability, except to reinstate Juan Ramirez’s appellate rights to address Crawford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel effectiveness | Ramirez argues counsel failed to object to a flawed VICAR jury charge and failed to call exculpatory witnesses. | Ramirez contends counsel’s strategy was reasonable given overwhelming evidence of enterprise; cross-examination decisions were strategic. | No deficient performance; strategy reasonable; no Strickland prejudice. |
| Venue for Count 12 Hobbs Act | Ramirez asserts venue is improper in SDNY because robbery occurred mainly in New Jersey. | Government contends substantial contacts and activity in the situs district satisfy venue. | Venue proper in SDNY; petitioners’ counsel not ineffective for not objecting. |
| Appellate counsel and Crawford | Juan Ramirez was deprived of counsel at a critical appellate stage affecting Crawford briefing. | Judge Ellis treated as Strickland/ineffective assistance; Ramirez cannot show prejudice. | Juan Ramirez’s §2255 motion granted to reinstate appellate rights to pursue Crawford claim; others denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of prejudice for complete denial or failure to provide meaningful adversarial testing)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes complete denial from partial failures under Cronic)
- United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1985) (venue and interstate commerce considerations under the Hobbs Act)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (caution against hindsight in evaluating counsel's decisions)
- Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1970) (importance of counsel at every stage of proceedings)
- Jenkins v. Coombe, 821 F.2d 158 (2d Cir. 1987) (illustrative of counsel's performance under appellate scrutiny)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (inadmissibility of testimonial statements without prior cross-examination where unavailable)
- United States v. Royer, 549 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 2008) (appellate counsel standards and prejudice considerations)