United States v. Baez
21-2020
2d Cir.Oct 18, 2022Background
- Humberto Baez was convicted after a jury trial in the E.D.N.Y. of: conspiracy to import ≥5 kg cocaine; conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine; and distribution/possession with intent to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine.
- District court sentenced Baez to 156 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
- Baez, represented on appeal by new counsel, asserted multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims against his prior attorneys David Gordon and Lawrence Herrmann (failure to interview exculpatory witnesses; failure to file/oppose pretrial motions or object sufficiently; hearing impairment affecting performance; bolstering a government witness; inadequate sentencing advocacy).
- The panel summarized Strickland’s two-prong test for IAC (performance and prejudice) and noted the strong presumption of reasonable professional judgment.
- The Second Circuit declined to resolve the IAC claims on direct appeal because the record and responses from prior counsel were undeveloped, and instead permitted Baez to raise them in a §2255 collateral proceeding; the appeal was dismissed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to interview exculpatory witnesses | Baez: counsel did not speak with witnesses he identified as exculpatory | Govt: merits not ripe on direct appeal; record undeveloped | Court: Record insufficient; decline to decide; allow §2255 |
| Failure to oppose motions / make pretrial motions / object at trial | Baez: counsel failed to make strategic pretrial challenges and objections | Govt: factual explanation from counsel needed; not appropriate on direct appeal | Court: Needs further development; allow §2255 |
| Counsel’s hearing impairment affected trial performance | Baez: Herrmann’s impairment undermined trial advocacy | Govt: factual record lacking; counsel should explain conduct | Court: Not resolved on direct appeal; allow §2255 |
| Improper bolstering of government witness and inadequate sentencing advocacy | Baez: counsel vouched for witness and failed to advocate at sentencing | Govt: record and counsel explanation required to evaluate prejudice | Court: Claims require development; allow §2255; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- United States v. Leone, 215 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2000) (options for addressing IAC claims on direct appeal)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (IAC claims normally raised in §2255 collateral proceedings)
- United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2000) (baseline aversion to resolving IAC on direct review)
- United States v. Matos, 905 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1990) (IAC on direct appeal appropriate only when resolution is beyond doubt)
- United States v. Khedr, 343 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003) (allegedly ineffective counsel should be given opportunity to explain conduct)
- United States v. Doe, 365 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2004) (§2255 provides an ample remedy and promotes judicial economy)