United States v. Washington

373 F. App'x 80
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedApril 9, 2010
DocketNo. 08-3058
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 373 F. App'x 80 (United States v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Washington, 373 F. App'x 80 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered upon the briefs and the appendices filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order denying the appellant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction be affirmed.

After an extensive bench conference about a juror’s possible use of a document apparently related to the “prisoner’s dilemma,” Washington waived any objection to the court’s decision not to question the juror and then failed to raise the issue on direct appeal, 353 F.3d 42 (D.C.Cir.2004). As a result of this double procedural default, Washington may raise the issue now only upon a showing of cause and prejudice. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982); United States v. Pettigrew, 346 F.3d 1139, 1144 (D.C.Cir.2003). The district court properly held Washington shows neither. Washington’s attempt to show cause by arguing ineffective assistance of counsel is unavailing because that claim also requires him to show prejudice, in addition to deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). His failure to show cause and prejudice prevents him both from raising this issue on collateral review and from showing-good cause for his request to interview jurors.

[81]*81Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Burnett
316 F. Supp. 3d 424 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Burnett
District of Columbia, 2018
United States v. Moore
75 F. Supp. 3d 568 (District of Columbia, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
373 F. App'x 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-washington-cadc-2010.