United States v. Thaddeus Vaskas
696 F. App'x 564
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Vaskas pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography based on files found on his laptop.
- His plea counsel, Cooper, had an expert (Tami Loehrs) produce a first report concluding the files likely resulted from caching, spam, or malware and that Vaskas may have received images unwittingly.
- The government produced a second, contradictory report; Loehrs then issued a second report that reached the same exculpatory conclusion as her first report but included different technical detail about caching, malware, and unwanted spam.
- Vaskas saw only the first Loehrs report before pleading guilty; he learned of the second report after pleading and sought to withdraw his plea.
- Cooper withdrew as counsel; a successor moved to withdraw the plea claiming Cooper failed to disclose the second report. The district court denied withdrawal, the Third Circuit affirmed, and Vaskas filed a §2255 habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance by Cooper.
- The district court denied §2255 relief, finding (1) the second report reiterated the first’s conclusion that Vaskas was not culpable and (2) Vaskas had admitted guilt under oath; this appeal followed and a COA was granted as to Cooper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to disclose the second expert report | Vaskas: Cooper’s nondisclosure prejudiced him; he would not have pled guilty if he had known of the report | Government/Cooper: The second report reached the same substantive conclusion as the first; Vaskas was informed of exculpatory expert evidence and still pled | Court: No ineffective assistance — no prejudice because second report merely reiterated the first’s conclusions |
| Whether Vaskas would have insisted on trial but for counsel’s error (prejudice prong under Strickland/Hill) | Vaskas: He would have gone to trial if aware of the second report | Government: Vaskas already chose to plead despite knowing of an exculpatory expert report | Court: Rejects Vaskas’s claim; his prior choice to plead despite exculpatory evidence undermines prejudice showing |
| Whether counsel’s performance was deficient under Strickland | Vaskas: Failing to provide the second report was objectively unreasonable | Government/CoA reasoning: Counsel need only provide enough information for an informed plea decision | Court: Likely no deficiency; Cooper informed Vaskas of exculpatory expert evidence, so representation was not constitutionally deficient |
| Whether the district court erred in concluding plea was knowing and voluntary | Vaskas: Plea was uninformed due to withheld report | District Court: Vaskas admitted guilt under oath and had info to decide | Court: Affirms district court — plea was knowing and voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice test for guilty-plea cases: would defendant have insisted on trial)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (a defendant may plead guilty while protesting innocence)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (context on plea bargaining coercion and counsel performance)
- Glenn v. Wynder, 743 F.3d 402 (3d Cir.: citation for Strickland framework)
- United States v. Dung Bui, 795 F.3d 363 (3d Cir.: counsel must provide enough info for an informed plea decision)
- Shotts v. Wetzel, 724 F.3d 364 (3d Cir.: guidance on what information counsel must convey for informed plea)