Tyler Davis Bingham v. United States, 2:13-cv-00052

In 2002 a grand jury indicted 40 defendants in an Aryan Brotherhood RICO prosecution; a multi-defendant trial followed.
Petitioner Tyler Davis Bingham was convicted of RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)), RICO conspiracy, two VICAR murders (18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1)), and one murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111).
Bingham received multiple life sentences (including two life terms without parole).
Bingham filed a § 2255 motion alleging (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) for various failures at trial, and (2) Brady violations for the government’s alleged nondisclosure of exculpatory materials (e.g., computer files, documents, and the so‑called “AB Mission Statement”).
The government opposed; the court reviewed filings and denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding Bingham failed to show prejudice from counsel’s alleged errors or from any alleged nondisclosure.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding Bingham did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IAC for failing to contest witness limitations and alleged government misconduct	Counsel failed to appeal or challenge restrictive witness orders that concealed fabrication/collusion	Errors not shown to have changed outcome; allegations speculative	Denied — no prejudice shown under Strickland/Hill
IAC for failing to call prosecution and BOP witnesses (e.g., Jessner, Halualani, Ellet)	Calling these witnesses would expose government tactics and impeachment material	Even if testimony were available, petitioner fails to show reasonable probability of a different result	Denied — no reasonable probability of different outcome
IAC for failing to object to alleged conflict of interest of BOP intelligence liaison (Beckwith)	Beckwith’s role would have revealed exculpatory relationships and impeachment evidence	Petitioner does not show how objection would have produced a different verdict	Denied — no prejudice established
Brady claim for nondisclosure of H‑Unit computers/files and provenance of AB Mission Statement	Government withheld exculpatory materials that would undermine indictment/trial evidence	Petitioner has not shown materiality or reasonable probability of a different result if disclosed	Denied — Brady materiality not established

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for IAC in the plea context; articulates performance and prejudice framework)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (prejudice inquiry where counsel’s ineffectiveness affects Fourth Amendment issues)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (defines materiality under Brady as reasonable probability of a different result)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (materiality standard for nondisclosed evidence)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady duty applies even without defense request; inadvertent nondisclosure treated like deliberate concealment)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability: reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution)