United States v. Joseph B. Miller, 795 F.3d 619

Miller was convicted in 2013 of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
He seeks a new trial arguing (i) false testimony by FBI Agent Peasley about evidence handling, and (ii) ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging certain identifications and credibility with cross-examination.
Evidence included Amtech surveillance video, Miller’s distinctive vehicle, and an in-court identification by Hoffman, a Standard Bank eyewitness.
The FBI attached an affidavit mischaracterizing Tauber’s statements in the photo array; Tauber later clarified she reminded Miller of a courier, not that the photo looked like the robber.
At trial, defense cross-examined Peasley on several points, but did not challenge Tauber’s pretrial statements or the license-plate enhancement process, and did not obtain a written confession.
A district court denied Miller’s Rule 33 motion; on appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding no prejudice from the asserted errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False testimony and materiality	Miller argues Peasley’s statements about enhancement and balance were false.	Miller contends the government knew of or used perjury to convict.	No reversible perjury; harmless overall.
Ineffective assistance—Hoffman identification	Tavitas should have moved to suppress Hoffman’s in-court ID.	No due-process violation; cross-examination sufficed to test reliability.	Not ineffective; cross-examination provided adequate safeguards.
Ineffective assistance—Tauber photo array statements	Counsel should have cross-examined Peasley about Tauber’s statements in the affidavit.	Impeachment would be weak and tainted by Tauber’s death; strategic choice not to cross.	Not ineffective; strategic choice and limited impact on jury.
Ineffective assistance—bank account balance error	Counsel should have corrected Peasley’s overstatement of Miller’s balance.	Minor error with insufficient prejudice under Strickland.	No prejudice; unlikely to alter outcome.

United States v. Saadeh, 61 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 1995) (perjury standard for new-trial relief)
United States v. Adcox, 19 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 1994) (cross-examination sufficiency for identifying testimony)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (identification reliability factors)
Cossel v. Miller, 229 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000) (distinction when pretrial identifications taint in-court ID)
Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (in-court identifications and reliability considerations)
United States v. Westmoreland, 240 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2001) (harmless-error doctrine for improper evidence)
Groves v. United States, 755 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2014) (overall effect of counsel errors analyzed in totality)
Johnson v. McCaughtry, 92 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 1996) (due-process concerns with identification procedures)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Confrontation Clause—hearsay and testimonial statements)