United States v. Datavs
2012 CAAF LEXIS 1318
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Datavs was convicted by general court-martial of false official statement and two specifications of forcible sodomy; sentence included dishonorable discharge, forfeiture, and reduction to E-1.
- AFCCA affirmed the findings and most sentence but limited forfeiture to $933 for two months.
- TJAG certified under Article 67(a)(2) to review Strickland-based claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Appellee alleged trial defense counsel failed to obtain an expert in sexual assault examinations, failed to impeach SF with telephone records, and failed to challenge two base victim-advocate panel members.
- AFCCA held two claims (impeachment and challenges for cause) within professional norms; found no prejudice for these.
- AFCCA found defense counsel deficient on the expert-improvement claim but concluded the deficiency was nonprejudicial; the decision was reviewed and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not obtaining an expert | Datavs contends deficiency and prejudice. | Appellee argues strategic choice within professional norms; no prejudice. | No material prejudice; defense not required to hire expert. |
| Impeachment with SF's telephone records | Datavs asserts failure to impeach SF harmed defense. | Appellee argues strategic avoidance to prevent locating SF's boyfriend; reasonable. | Strategic choice reasonable; no prejudice. |
| Challenging two base victim-advocate panel members for cause | Datavs alleges improper panel composition prejudiced trial. | Appellee asserts members were impartial and capable of applying evidence and instructions. | Strategic decisions within professional norms; no prejudice. |
| Overall prejudice under Strickland standard | Combined errors undermined confidence in verdict. | No single or cumulative prejudice; evidence supported conviction. | No reasonable probability of different outcome; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard; strong deference to counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (deferential review; prejudice standard reaffirmed)
- United States v. Green, 68 M.J. 360 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (de novo review of ineffectiveness; presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Gutierrez, 66 M.J. 329 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (de novo analysis in Strickland-based review)
- United States v. Gooch, 69 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (strategic decisions not deficient when reasonable)
- United States v. Stephenson, 33 M.J. 79 (C.M.A. 1991) (non-deficient to forego certain witnesses under strategy)
- Boyle v. McKune, 544 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2008) (deficient performance not shown when expert counterfactual unlikely to change outcome)
- Caro v. Woodford, 280 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2002) (prejudice assessment tied to likelihood of different result with expert testimony)
- United States v. Datavs, 70 M.J. 595 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2011) (appeals court on ineffectiveness standards and prejudice)