United States v. Graves
951 F. Supp. 2d 758
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- Graves was convicted of armed bank robbery after three trials (two mistrials, conviction at third trial) and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Two search warrants (for Graves’s Isuzu Rodeo and for Leslie Neal’s residence) left the warrant form sections describing items to be seized blank; each had an accompanying affidavit with an Attachment B listing items, not incorporated into the warrant. The government concedes the warrants were facially invalid.
- Evidence seized: from the Isuzu—receipts and tools (~$1,653.90 in receipts) and from Neal’s home—receipts (~$226) and a pair of men’s New Balance sneakers; Graves also had cash on his person at arrest.
- Eyewitness ID evidence tied Graves to the robbery (assistant manager Kimberly Buckley identified him; Tara Detweiler saw facial features through a gap in mask; vehicle registered to Graves seen leaving bank lot earlier).
- Graves argued counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the facially invalid warrants (lack of particularity), and (2) failing to call Leslie Neal (a government witness from prior trials) at the third trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Graves) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence seized under warrants that failed to describe items to be seized | Counsel should have moved to suppress evidence from both searches because the warrants were facially invalid for lack of particularity | Warrant for Isuzu validated by automobile exception; evidence from Neal’s home saved by the Leon/Herring good-faith exception | Counsel was not ineffective regarding the Isuzu (automobile exception). For Neal’s home, counsel’s failure to challenge particularity was deficient, but Graves suffered no prejudice because suppressed items were not outcome-determinative; §2255 denied on this claim |
| Whether evidence from Neal’s home would be admissible under Herring even though warrant was facially deficient | N/A (relief depends on suppression) | The government argued Herring limits exclusion and requires culpability (deliberate/reckless/gross negligence) for suppression | Court held Herring did not negate Leon’s limitation for warrants so facially deficient officers could not reasonably rely on them; evidence from Neal’s home would have been suppressed, but its absence would not have changed the verdict |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Leslie Neal at the third trial | Neal’s testimony would have supported an alibi/alternative explanation (at or near bank; purchase timing; she would testify similarly) | Counsel reasonably declined to call Neal because her testimony placed Graves near the bank and was not credible; risk of bolstering prosecution | Court held decision not to call Neal was reasonable trial strategy and not constitutionally deficient |
| Whether Graves is entitled to §2255 relief overall | Counsel’s errors undermined trial fairness and affected outcome | Government: evidence and eyewitness ID were sufficient; errors (if any) were not prejudicial | §2255 motion denied; certificate of appealability limited to the Leon/Herring admissibility issue for facially deficient warrants |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant that did not describe items to be seized is facially invalid)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule and limits where warrants are so facially deficient officers cannot reasonably rely)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (good-faith/exclusionary rule analysis emphasizing deterrence and culpability)
- Virgin Islands v. John, 654 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2011) (Third Circuit: warrants so lacking in indicia of probable cause or facially deficient justify exclusion under Leon despite Herring)
- United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) (Second Circuit: Herring requires a culpability inquiry before excluding evidence seized under a facially defective warrant)
- United States v. Lazar, 604 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2009) (Sixth Circuit: facially deficient warrants trigger exclusion despite Herring)