382 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- In May 2009 Michael Walker was carjacked, robbed, and kidnapped; Walker was the sole eyewitness to identify Floyd Clark as an assailant at trial. A jury convicted Clark on multiple counts in December 2010. Clark was sentenced to an aggregate term (initially 284 months, later reduced to 260 months after resentencing).
- In August 2014 Walker executed a notarized affidavit recanting his identification of Clark, claiming false identification motivated by revenge and police pressure. Clark filed a §2255 motion (Apr. 2015) asserting newly discovered evidence (the recantation) and ineffective assistance of counsel claims; he later supplemented the motion with a §924(c) vagueness challenge.
- At an evidentiary hearing Walker invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify about the recantation; the court declined to grant use immunity. The court admitted Walker’s affidavit and certain statements to DOJ personnel under the Rule 804(b)(3) hearsay exception but reserved credibility and truth determinations.
- Applying the D.C. Circuit two-part test for recantation-based collateral relief, the Court found Clark showed that a new trial without Walker’s identification would probably lead to acquittal, but the Court was not “reasonably well satisfied” that Walker’s trial testimony was false and therefore denied §2255 relief on the new-evidence ground.
- The Court also denied Clark’s ineffective-assistance claims: (1) trial counsel’s withdrawal of an objection to a two-level obstruction enhancement was not prejudicial and was reasonable strategy given the court’s view and the record of contempt; (2) appellate counsel’s omission of the obstruction issue was reasonable and Clark failed to show prejudice. The §924(c) vagueness claim was held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clark) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker's 2014 recantation is newly discovered evidence warranting §2255 relief | Recantation proves trial identification false and undermines verdict; new affidavit warrants vacatur/new trial | Recantation is unreliable, Walker unavailable for cross-exam, and his statements conflict with prior sworn testimony and corroborating circumstantial evidence | Denied: Court admits affidavit for consideration but is not “reasonably well satisfied” that trial testimony was false; relief denied though a new trial without the ID would likely acquit |
| Whether trial counsel (Conte) rendered ineffective assistance by withdrawing objection to obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement | Clark says he instructed counsel to press the objection; withdrawal was deficient and prejudicial | Government: enhancement applicable based on contempt/refusal to provide DNA; withdrawal was reasonable strategy given court’s stance; no prejudice shown | Denied: no Strickland prejudice; counsel’s action was reasonable and enhancement proper |
| Whether appellate counsel (Roland) was ineffective for not appealing obstruction enhancement | Clark says he asked appellate counsel to raise the enhancement on appeal | Government: counsel reasonably focused the limited resentencing appeal on the issues actually before the court; winnowing issues is proper appellate strategy; no showing of likely success | Denied: no deficient performance or prejudice shown under Strickland |
| Whether Clark’s §924(c) conviction/sentence is unconstitutional post-Johnson/Dimaya (supplement) | Clark contends §924(c)(3)(B) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague post-Johnson/Dimaya | Government seeks to await higher-court guidance; argues resolution may turn on Davis | Held in abeyance: Court will decide after Supreme Court decides United States v. Davis |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements for jury to decide)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (no constitutional right to have appellate counsel raise every nonfrivolous issue)
- United States v. Kearney, 682 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (recantation-based challenges treated with skepticism)
- United States v. Henry, 821 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.D.C. 2011) (D.C. Circuit-factor test and rigorous scrutiny for recantations)
- United States v. Mahdi, 172 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.D.C. 2016) (denying relief where recantation unpersuasive and corroboration supported trial testimony)
- United States v. Williams, 233 F.3d 592 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (second prong: new trial likely to produce acquittal standard)
- United States v. Eshetu, 898 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (D.C. Circuit voided §924(c)(3)(B) residual clause; remand considerations reflected in this case)