U.S. v. Lathrop

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion for new trial on arson charges arising out of defendant's payment to employee to set fire to defendant's bar, even though defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to question seated juror on potential bias issue: (2) neglecting to investigate certain evidence that would have established defendant's innocence; and (3) failing to call alibi witnesses. Defense counsel's failure to question juror, who had relative who worked for company insuring defendant's bar, was legitimate trial strategy where both defendant and defense counsel believed that juror as sports aficionado might be sympathetic to defendant. Moreover, record did not support defendant's claim that counsel made no effort to interview or evaluate certain witnesses, and defendant otherwise failed to establish how additional investigation of certain witnesses or testimony supplied by alleged alibi witnesses would have assisted his case.