Resnick v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his firearms and sexual abuse of two young boys convictions, as well as his life sentence, where defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective during guilty plea process, as well as at trial and sentencing hearing. Record showed that defendant reached initial plea agreement calling for sentence of 20 years, but said agreement fell apart when defendant refused to admit certain conduct during plea hearing. Government offered amended plea deal with same sentence, but defendant rejected offer and went to trial, where he was convicted on all charges. While defendant argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek specific performance on plea agreement, defendant failed to show any prejudice, where he rejected second plea offer, which was substantially similar to first offer. Ct. also rejected defendant’s argument that his counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1) call expert witness to counter government expert who testified to common features of child sexual abuse cases, where counsel had reasonable strategy to argue that expert’s testimony defied common sense; (2) call rebuttal computer expert to counter government’s expert, who testified as to how child pornography offenders obtain child pornography, where defendant failed to identify expert who could have given favorable testimony at time of trial; (3) introduce impeachment evidence of victim’s past sexual conduct with other boy, where said evidence would have been barred under Rule 412; and (4) object to prosecutor’s reference to defendant refusing to take polygraph, where admission of said evidence was not settled law within circuit. Counsel also was not ineffective during sentencing hearing by submitting expert report that contained opinions that were harmful to defendant’s mitigation evidence, where report supported defendant’s claim that he was not pedophile.