United States v. Hebshie
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120746
| D. Mass. | 2010Background
- Hebshie was convicted in 2006 of arson and mail fraud for a 2001 Taunton, MA fire and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition asserting ineffective trial counsel.
- Government proof relied on a cause-and-origin arson expert (Domingos), a canine accelerant-detection handler (Lynch), and a laboratory analyst (Drugan).
- Trial counsel did not file pretrial motions or seek Daubert/Kumho hearings on the key expert evidence nor object to the canine/analytical testimony.
- Critical flaws included: only a single accelerant sample with no control/comparison samples, and a missing basement investigation and documentation.
- The court found defense performance deficient under Strickland and that the deficiencies prejudiced the outcome, granting the habeas petition.
- The ruling vacated Hebshie’s conviction and remanded for relief consistent with the memorandum order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daubert hearing required for expert testimony? | Hebshie | Hebshie | Yes; Daubert hearing required before trial on key evidence |
| Failure to challenge canine evidence? | Hebshie | Hebshie | Error; canine testimony improperly foregrounded without proper challenge |
| Failure to challenge accelerant lab test? | Hebshie | Hebshie | Error; lab results unvalidated without Daubert hearing |
| Failure to challenge cause-and-origin testimony? | Hebshie | Hebshie | Error; foundation for origin testimony problematic without hearing |
| Cumulative prejudice from counsel's deficiencies? | Hebshie | Hebshie | Yes; prejudice assessed cumulatively undermines confidence in verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; two-prong test)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping for scientific evidence; reliability required)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (extend Daubert to technical and specialized testimony)
- Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 394 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2005) (canine and arson evidence reliability concerns; exclusion where flawed methodology)