United States v. Zajac
680 F. App'x 776
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In September 2006 a pipe-bomb exploded at the Salt Lake City Public Library; no one was injured. Investigators recovered bomb remnants including a torn piece of Estes model-rocket packaging with a price sticker, a fingerprint from card stock, smokeless gunpowder visually consistent with Alliant Blue Dot, soldered stranded wire, adhesive, alligator clips, and related items.
- A threatening letter about the bombing was postmarked from Omaha shortly after Zajac had visited Omaha; Zajac’s daughter testified he had been there that weekend.
- A national fingerprint search matched the card-stock print to Thomas Zajac. ATF agents arrested Zajac in Illinois and seized materials from his apartment and storage locker (gunpowder in a vacuum, silicone sealant matching adhesive from the bomb, solder, soldering irons, alligator clips).
- Surveillance video, cell-tower records, credit-card receipts, and witness identifications (daughter and ex-wife) placed a man matching Zajac at the library shortly before the blast and showed travel consistent with Zajac’s presence in the region at the relevant times. Evidence of motive and past threats to police was also presented.
- At trial prosecutors made a number of overstated or inaccurate statements and the district court later identified investigative and evidentiary concerns (missing CCTV from parts of the library, returned items, limited DNA testing, and uncollected store video in Illinois). Defense counsel did not object to many of the statements or pursue some investigative avenues.
- On direct appeal the convictions were affirmed. Zajac sought § 2255 relief alleging ineffective assistance; the district court found trial errors but denied relief for lack of prejudice and granted a certificate of appealability on ineffective-assistance claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Zajac could not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome given overwhelming evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient | Counsel failed to object to numerous prosecutorial misstatements, failed to obtain/introduce potentially exculpatory evidence, and failed to interview/call witnesses; strategy was inadequate | Counsel made strategic decisions after investigation; omissions were reasonable and not plainly deficient | Court assumed some errors but did not reach deficiency conclusively because no prejudice shown; defense strategy not shown to be prejudicial |
| Whether deficiencies prejudiced Zajac under Strickland’s prejudice prong | Cumulative trial errors and failures would have led jurors to distrust the prosecution and change verdicts | Overwhelming independent physical, circumstantial, and witness evidence tied Zajac to the bomb; speculative effects of objections or additional witnesses insufficient | No reasonable probability of a different outcome; § 2255 relief denied |
| Admissibility and prejudicial effect of Rule 404(b) evidence (Illinois/Hinsdale bombing) | Failure to obtain potentially exculpatory Illinois store video undermines admission and fairness of 404(b) evidence | 404(b) evidence (similar bomb materials and letters) was properly admitted and was not outcome-determinative given the Salt Lake City evidence | Admission of 404(b) evidence was not reversible error; it did not change the result |
| Cumulative-error claim (aggregate harmless errors) | Multiple harmless errors together deprived Zajac of a fair trial | Errors did not undermine the core case; jury instructions cautioned jurors that arguments are not evidence | Cumulative effect insufficient to overcome overwhelming record support for convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for § 2255 denials: de novo legal review and clear-error for facts)
- Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2011) (mere speculation cannot satisfy Strickland prejudice)
- Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2003) (explaining cumulative-error analysis)
- United States v. Taylor, 514 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2008) (presumption that juries follow jury instructions)