Raysor v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15396

Raysor and his brother ran a violent drug-distribution gang from 1985–1996 in NY and VA.
Indicted in 1996; government offered a 29-year plea, which expired 12/20/1996 and was briefly extended to 2/3/1997 after counsel-government meeting; Raysor rejected the offer.
Counsel was later disqualified on 4/4/1997 for a conflict of interest related to a co-defendant.
Trial lasted about twelve weeks; verdict: guilty on four counts including racketeering acts; life terms imposed in 1999.
On direct appeal and collateral review, Raysor challenged counsel effectiveness for not advising on the plea offer; district court denied relief without full evidentiary hearing.
Second Circuit vacated and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing	Raysor argues deficient performance prejudiced him.	Government contends no reasonable probability of acceptance of plea and no hearing necessary.	Remanded for evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
Puglisi v. United States, 586 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2009) (plausible claim requires some objective evidence of prejudice)
Chang v. United States, 250 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001) (allows middle-ground factual determinations without full evidentiary hearing)
Purdy v. United States, 208 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses prejudice from plea negotiations and sentencing disparities)
Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2003) (prejudice shown where undisputed disparity supports plea acceptance)
Gordon v. United States, 156 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 1998) (disparity between plea exposure and trial sentence supports prejudice finding)
Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 1999) (reasonableness of counsel's performance and plea-advising duties)