23 F. Supp. 3d 32
D.D.C.2014Background
- Gooch, proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his convictions and sentence.”
- He was part of the M Street Crew drug enterprise in DC; the investigation spanned 2002–2004 and led to a 159-count superseding indictment filed in 2005.
- Gooch faced multiple capital-related counts; a death-penalty notice was filed in 2005 for two murders.
- Group trials separated defendants; Gooch went to trial solo on January 9, 2007, with two learned counsels appointed for capital case concerns.
- He was ultimately convicted on June 1, 2007, and sentenced in September 2007 to multiple life and long-term terms; the DC Circuit affirmed in 2012.
- Gooch filed his § 2255 petition on April 9, 2013, within one year of the Supreme Court denial of certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for Grand Jury indictment procedure | Gooch argues Grand Jury procedure not complied with; indictment improperly presented. | Gooch has no evidence of grand-jury flaws or prejudice. | Denial of this ineffective-assistance claim; no demonstrated prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance from cross-examination by Heslep | Cross-examination of Detective Herndon harmed Gooch; prejudicial testimony elicited. | Question was not deficient; any prejudice was curable and not dispositive. | No reversible error; no prejudice shown. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising cross-examination issue | Leckar failed to raise a strong issue on appeal. | Appellate counsel reasonably chose issues likely to succeed. | Appellate counsel not deficient; issues raised were reasonable. |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to move for change of venue | Venue saturated with news coverage; change of venue warranted. | Counsel exercised professional judgment; no prejudice shown. | No error; no prejudice established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (per se merit impairment when no adversarial testing)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (presumption of reasonable professional assistance; testing not meaningful)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (reiterates performance and prejudice prongs)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1988) (harmless-error analysis for grand-jury defects)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (standard for prejudice from attorney error on appeal)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (focuses on selectivity and strategic choices in appellate briefing)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits race-based jury challenges; Batson framework)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. 2008) (requires showing of purposeful discrimination in jury selection)