Dorminey v. United States
Decision Date | 26 August 1982 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 80-84-ALB. |
Parties | Jerry D. DORMINEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Oteri & Weinberg, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Samuel A. Wilson, Macon, Ga., for respondent.
Petitioner Jerry D. Dorminey moved this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on September 17, 1980, to vacate and set aside the sentence of imprisonment now being served that was imposed upon him by this court on October 10, 1978, and affirmed upon appeal by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Herring and Dorminey, 602 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1979). The motion is based upon the following grounds:
A. Denial of effective assistance of counsel.
B. Denial of rights to fair trial by an impartial jury and to confront and cross-examine witnesses, in violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
C. Denial of right to fair trial in violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendments because of appearance of lack of impartiality by court.
In support of ground B petitioner Dorminey set forth the following facts:
"...
The affidavit of William L. Rushing, Jr. stated:
"Now comes William L. Rushing Jr. who deposes and says the following: _________________________ My name is William L. Rushing Jr., I am married, have two children and reside at 12 Lauren St. Richmond Hills, Georgia. ________________________ On the dates of Sept. 25, 1978 through Sept. 30, 1978, I was a member of the jury hearing the case of United States vs. Jerry Dorminey and Robert L. Herring. _____________________________________ During the week long trial, I became aware of, and familiar with people in the court house by observing them on a day to day basis. ______________________ I recall that on Wednesday Sept. 27, 1978, myself and other jurors were taken on the elevator to the first floor of the court house. As we were getting out of the elevator, I observed two males dressed in plain clothes. I recognized them as U. S. Marshalls that I had seen performing their regular duties in the courtroom. I am unable to identify either marshall by name. Upon getting out of the elevator, I heard one U. S. Marshall say to the other, `The judge says they are both guilty, one is as guilty as the other.'--------------------------- I give this affidavit freely and voluntarily, without reward or compulsion from any persons whomsoever. This affidavit is being given to Arthur P. MacDonald whom I know to be an investigator employed by the law firm of Oteri & Weinber.------------------------
/s/ Arthur P. MacDonald /s/ William L. Rushing, Jr. June 20, 1980 6-20-80 Witness Affiant" Petitioner's motion was also supported by a memorandum of law prepared by his habeas attorneys Oteri and Weinberg of Boston, Massachusetts.
By order dated October 21, 1980, the court disposed of petitioner's contention that his trial was unlawfully moved to Savannah, Georgia and presided over by this trial judge and directed the United States to respond to all remaining contentions. Following the government's response of December 18, 1980, the court, by order of January 15, 1981, directed:
On January 22, 1981, petitioner moved to expand the scope of the February 20, 1981, hearing to include inquiry into petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and the court on January 26, 1981, denied that motion because "those contentions can be determined fully and fairly from the files and records ..."
On February 20, 1981, an evidentiary hearing was held in Savannah, Georgia. During that hearing every trial juror and alternate juror testified separately in chambers in response to questions asked by the court. Counsel for petitioner and the government were present and permitted to suggest questions to be asked.
On October 23, 1981, and June 9, 1982,1 additional evidentiary hearings were held in Savannah. All evidence having been heard and considered, it is now the court's responsibility to decide petitioner's motion.
The federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, provides:
* * * * * *
Pursuant to that statute and the Federal Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings, the evidentiary hearings that have been held were ordered and limited to the issue of whether or not petitioner's jury was impermissibly influenced by remarks of a Deputy United States Marshal overheard during the trial. In refusing an evidentiary hearing on other issues the court was mindful that evidentiary hearings must be held to resolve bona fide factual issues that are possibly relevant to the issues set forth in petitioner's motion. See, Stokes v. United States, 652 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1981) and Dugan v. United States, 521 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1975).
As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in Dalli v. United States, 491 F.2d 758, 760:
"...
Petitioner in his motion and personal affidavit contends that he was denied his constitutional right to "counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance." Mackenna v. Ellis, 280 F.2d 592, 599 (5th Cir. 1960), modified, 289 F.2d 928, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 877, 82 S.Ct. 121, 7 L.Ed.2d 78 (1961)." United States v. Hughes, 635 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir. 1981).
Factually he asserts that he retained Peter Zack Geer to represent him; that Mr. Geer met with him only three times before trial; that Mr. Geer failed to interview witnesses Danny Hatcher, Frank Harris and Kenneth Hopkins; that Mr. Geer drank too much before and during the trial; and that Mr. MacDougald, Mr. Geer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Rains
...to Officer Devinny. Such evidence is inadmissible hearsay and does not warrant the relief granted in Fisher. See Dorminey v. United States, 546 F. Supp. 702, 705 (M.D. Ga. 1982) (quoting Dalli v. United States, 491 F.2d 758, 760 (2d Cir. 1974)) ("'Mere generalities or hearsay statements wil......
-
Alfonso v. State, 82-738
...Cir.1981); United States v. Forrest, 620 F.2d 446 (5th Cir.1980), appeal after remand, 649 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.1981); Dorminey v. United States, 546 F.Supp. 702 (M.D.Ga.1982), and by our state Jones v. State, 411 So.2d 165 (Fla.1982); Diaz v. State, 435 So.2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); State v.......
-
Posner v. U.S.
...counsel was deficient, he failed to so inform the trial court or discharge his attorney. The government relies on Dorminey v. United States, 546 F.Supp. 702, 706 (M.D.Ga.1982), and Chapman v. United States, 469 F.2d 634, 636-37 (5th Cir.1972). In Dorminey, the defendant failed to complain a......