Faucett v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective during defendant’s trial on charges of production and possession of child pornography, where trial counsel failed to advise defendant that involuntary intoxication was available defense. Defendant failed to establish any prejudice, where defendant failed to allege any facts that would support viable defense of involuntary intoxication such as facts showing he was intoxicated at time of charged offenses. Fact that defendant’s physician had been convicted of illegally dispensing narcotics to drug-seeking addicts did not require different result, where: (1) defendant’s medical records did not establish that defendant had any active prescriptions for relevant drugs at time of charged offenses; and (2) defendant’s confession that he knew what he was doing when generating child pornography defeated any possible involuntary intoxication defense. Also, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to develop diminished capacity as mitigating sentencing factor, where such factor would have undermined defense strategy of showing acceptance of responsibility.