United States v. W. Harkonen, 705 F. App'x 606

Scott Harkonen was convicted by a jury of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343); conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Harkonen filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in district court seeking to vacate his conviction based on new law and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
He argued Matrixx Initiatives (2011) announced a new rule that would show manifest injustice and require vacatur; he previously raised Matrixx on direct appeal and lost.
He also argued trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for declining to call prepared expert witnesses (a biostatistician and a pulmonologist) to rebut the government’s scientific evidence about Actimmune.
Defense counsel had investigated and consulted multiple experts but decided on the eve of the defense case not to call them based on strategic judgments and cross-examination results; record includes declarations from counsel, experts, and an independent legal advisor.
The district court denied coram nobis without an evidentiary hearing; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Matrixx announced a new rule requiring vacatur / manifest injustice	Matrixx creates a new controlling rule that shows manifest injustice in Harkonen’s trial	Matrixx was addressed on direct appeal; no change in controlling law and no manifest injustice shown	Denied — no change in controlling law and no manifest injustice
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not calling expert witnesses	Counsel should have called biostatistician/pulmonologist; failure was constitutionally deficient	Counsel made informed, strategic decision after thorough investigation; decision was within Strickland range	Denied — decision was a reasonable strategic judgment under Strickland
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on coram nobis petition	Hearing necessary to explore counsel’s decisions and expert testimony	Record (declarations, testimony) was sufficient; no abuse of discretion in denying a hearing	Denied — district court did not abuse discretion

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (2011) (addressing when adverse-event reports can support materiality in securities claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel requires reasonable performance and prejudice)
United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for coram nobis denials described)
Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133 (9th Cir. 1976) (coram nobis relief limited; requires manifest injustice or change in controlling law)
Jackson v. Calderon, 211 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (strategic choices after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable under Strickland)