United States v. Arny, 137 F. Supp. 3d 981

Dr. Arny was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and unlawfully dispense controlled substances after trial in which his prior counsel failed to call key witnesses and did not thoroughly investigate.
The court applied the Strickland framework to assess whether prior counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial under the standard that performance must fall outside the wide range of competent assistance.
The government relied on expert and patient-witness testimony to prove a lack of legitimate medical purpose and deviation from the usual course of medical practice.
Prior counsel did not call Dr. Saxman, did not interview her, and did not interview Dr. Arny’s patients, though they were known and could have offered helpful testimony.
Prior counsel lied to Arny about Saxman’s indictment status, and their failure to interview Saxman or patients weakened Arny’s defense and prejudiced the trial.
New counsel moved for a Rule 33 new trial, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel; the court granted the motion, finding deficient performance and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior counsel’s conduct was deficient under Strickland	Arny argues eight errors; three rise to deficiency	Arny contends failures fall outside reasonable professional norms	Yes; deficiencies established under Strickland
Whether the deficient conduct prejudiced the defense under Strickland	Testimony from Saxman and patients would create reasonable doubt	Prejudice exists if errors undermined the trial’s results	Yes; there is a reasonable probability of acquittal would have occurred
Whether failure to attend the Daubert hearing constituted deficient performance	Attendance would have aided cross-examination of Detective Hunter	Non-attendance could be strategic and not deficient	No; Daubert issue separately resolved by trial court, but conclusions do not alter Strickland ruling
Whether the court should grant a new trial under Rule 33 based on the Strickland deficiencies	Rule 33 requires a new trial when counsel is constitutionally deficient	Rule 33 standard is distinct but tied to prejudice under Strickland	Yes; Rule 33 relief granted due to Strickland deficiencies and prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice framework)
United States v. Munoz, 605 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (framework for evaluating Rule 33 ineffectiveness claims)
Towns v. Smith, 395 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2005) (counsel's strategic decisions must be investigated, not neglected)
United States v. Kuzniar, 881 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1989) (defining 'interest of justice' standard under Rule 33)
Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2000) (prejudice element in ineffective-assistance claims)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (reweighing mitigation evidence in prejudice analysis)
United States v. Steele, 727 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1984) (trial tactics and strategy concerns in cross-examination)
United States v. Quigley, 890 F.2d 1019 (8th Cir. 1989) (Daubert-related risk of prejudicial profiling)