United States v. Blackson
236 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph L. Blackson was convicted after a multi-defendant trial arising from an FBI/MPD investigation into the "M Street Crew," and was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment plus 10 years supervised release; the court applied a lieutenant-role enhancement.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed all convictions except one Count vacated for lack of evidence; the district court left the sentence intact on remand.
- Blackson filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and sought an evidentiary hearing; the government opposed and no hearing was held.
- Key alleged deficiencies: trial counsel failed to call three defense witnesses, prevented or failed to inform Blackson of his right to testify, and failed to argue foreseeability of drug quantities at sentencing; appellate counsel allegedly failed to press Brady/Confrontation claims about MPD Officer Donna Leftridge.
- The district court reviewed the trial record, appellate decision, sentencing proceedings, and proffered affidavits and concluded that (1) counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable, (2) Blackson suffered no Strickland prejudice, and (3) no evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to call three witnesses at trial | Blackson: Carney omitted witnesses who would rebut government’s proof of an organized crew and his leadership role | Court/Gov: Carney knew of and considered witnesses and made strategic decision not to call them; proffers weak and partly unsigned | Denied—strategic decision reasonable; no prejudice given overwhelming evidence and D.C. Circuit’s finding of sufficiency |
| Denial/usurpation of right to testify | Blackson: Carney did not inform or usurped his decision to testify | Court: Record shows the judge asked on the record; Blackson expressly declined to testify after consultation | Denied—no evidence counsel prevented testimony; record shows defendant knowingly waived right |
| Failure to argue foreseeability of drug quantities at sentencing | Blackson: Carney did not properly argue he could not have foreseen drug quantities while jailed in 2003 | Court/Gov: Carney and Blackson raised objections in PSR and at sentencing; foreseeability is a sentencing-issue resolved on record and later affirmed on appeal | Denied—issue was litigated at sentencing and on appeal; no deficient performance |
| Ineffective appellate counsel re: Officer Leftridge (Brady/Confrontation) | Blackson: Appellate counsel failed to argue suppressed impeachment evidence and improper limitation on cross-examination | Court/Gov: Appellate counsel raised related issues; D.C. Circuit found nondisclosure not material and any Confrontation-error non-prejudicial given overwhelming evidence | Denied—counsel argued the issue on appeal; Circuit rejected the claims, and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (affirming convictions; discussing evidence of Blackson’s leadership and issues on Leftridge)
- United States v. Askew, 88 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (counsel’s duty to investigate and prejudice standard for failure-to-investigate claims)
- United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (§ 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal; standards for § 2255 hearings)
- Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) (§ 2255 hearing unnecessary where record conclusively shows no relief)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (elements of a Brady claim and prejudice inquiry)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury’s role and sentencing factfinding implications)