United States v. Daraya Marshall, 946 F.3d 591

Daraya Marshall was indicted on 15 felony counts for sex trafficking and related offenses, including multiple counts involving minors; four victims were under 18.
The government disclosed Dr. Sharon Cooper, a pediatrician with ~25 years’ experience working with child sex-trafficking victims, as an expert on recruitment, grooming, and victim psychology. Her CV (91 pages) listed clinical experience, publications, and lectures.
Trial counsel Joanne Slaight and Joseph Conte moved in limine to exclude Dr. Cooper on three grounds: inadequate Rule 16 notice, lack of helpfulness under Rule 702, and undue prejudice/confusion under Rule 403; they did not challenge her qualifications. The court limited the scope of her testimony but denied other challenges.
Marshall pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement the day jury selection was to begin; sentence was 25 years.
On direct appeal Marshall (with new counsel) argued his plea was involuntary because trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to Dr. Cooper’s qualifications, and he asked for a remand/evidentiary hearing.
The D.C. Circuit held counsel’s failure to object was not deficient because an objection would have been meritless: under Fed. R. Evid. 702 an expert may be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and Dr. Cooper’s CV established qualification; the court affirmed without remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the qualification of the government’s expert (Dr. Cooper)	Marshall: Dr. Cooper claimed expertise in "forensic pediatrics" without specific coursework; counsel’s failure to object to qualifications led to admission of powerful expert testimony and induced guilty plea	Government: The record shows Dr. Cooper had extensive experience, publications, and training; an objection to qualifications would have been meritless; counsel reasonably litigated other Daubert/notice/prejudice issues	Counsel’s performance was not deficient. Objecting to qualifications would have been meritless under Rule 702 because experience alone can qualify an expert; no evidentiary remand required.
Whether remand for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims is warranted	Marshall: Needs factual development to prove counsels’ omission induced his plea	Government: The existing record conclusively shows no error and no prejudice; no remand needed	No remand. The record conclusively forecloses a colorable claim; courts need not remand when the claim is meritless as a matter of law.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (reasonable-probability standard applied to plea context)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (expert qualification inquiry covers non-scientific expertise)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (assessing counsel’s overall performance; strategic choices reviewed deferentially)
United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908 (remand standard for colorable ineffective-assistance claims)
United States v. Sitzmann, 893 F.3d 811 (declining remand when record conclusively shows claim meritless)
Heller v. District of Columbia, 801 F.3d 264 (affirming admission based on decades of experience and appropriate methodology)
United States v. Smith, 640 F.3d 358 (expert qualification supported by extensive investigative experience)