U.S. v. Simpson

Dist. Ct. erred in denying without conducting evidentiary hearing defendant’s motion for new trial under Rule 33(a), alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to contact three proposed witnesses, two of which would have testified that defendant’s co-defendants admitted that defendant as “taking the rap” for them on instant charged offense. While Dist. Ct. believed that defendant had failed to establish any prejudice in trial counsel’s failure to call said witnesses, Ct. of Appeals found that reversal was required with directions to conduct evidentiary hearing, since: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel claims often require evidentiary hearing because they frequently allege facts that record does not fully disclose; (2) evidentiary hearing might produce evidence supporting defendant’s claim that counsel did not communicate with defendant’s proposed witnesses; and (3) said proposed testimony would have been admissible at least for impeachment purposes and could have been substantively admissible under either excited utterance or present sense impressions exceptions to hearsay rule if explored at evidentiary hearing, since said statements were allegedly made by co-defendants at time when defendant was being arrested and when his home was being searched.