U.S. v. Jasin

• Decision Date: 15 September 2003
• Docket Number: Criminal Action No. 91-602-08.
• Citation: 292 F.Supp.2d 670
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Thomas P. JASIN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

292 F.Supp.2d 670

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Thomas P. JASIN, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 91-602-08.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

September 15, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert E. Goldman, Robert A. Zauzmer, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Richard L. Scheff, Esquire, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Mark E. Haddad, Esquire, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                  I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 673
                 II. BACKGROUND ......................................................... 674
                III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................. 676
                 IV. SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 8, 2002 ................ 677
                     A. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE IN
                         FAILING TO CALL AT TRIAL FIVE WITNESSES REQUESTED
                         BY DEFENDANT WHO DEFENDANT ARGUED WOULD HAVE
                         SUPPORTED HIS GOOD-FAITH BELIEF THAT HIS CONDUCT
                         WAS LAWFUL ..................................................... 677
                

                     B. TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, INTERVIEW
                         AND CALL AT TRIAL TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AND THREE
                         FACT WITNESSES PREJUDICED DEFENDANT ........................... 678
                  V. DISCUSSION ........................................................ 680
                     A. THE GOVERNMENT'S CHALLENGES TO THE QUALIFICATIONS
                         OF HIGGINS AND YATES AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
                         OPINIONS STATED IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS .......................... 680
                        1. The Government Waived Any Opportunity to Challenge Higgins' and
                            Yates' Expert Qualifications and the Admissibility of Their
                            Opinions ................................................... 680
                        2. The Court's Reliance on Expert Testimony Concerning Applicable
                           Law ......................................................... 683
                           (a.) Expert Testimony Concerning the Law Applicable to Importation
                                  of Defense Articles Is Admissible as it Relates to Defendant's
                                  State of Mind ........................................ 683
                          (b.) The Government's Arguments Concerning Higgins' and Yates'
                                 Expert Qualifications and the Admissibility of Their Opinions
                                 Do Not Establish Clear Error or Manifest Injustice .... 685
                              (1.) Expert Testimony under Daubert-Kumho Tire ........... 685
                              (2.) Higgins' Qualifications and the Admissibility of His
                                   Proposed Testimony .................................. 686
                                   (i.) Higgins' Qualifications ........................ 686
                                   (ii.) Admissibility of Higgins' Expert Opinions .... 687
                             (3.) Yates' Qualifications and the Admissibility of His Proposed
                                   Testimony ........................................... 689
                                  (i.) Yates' Qualifications ........................... 689
                                 (ii.) Admissibility of Yates' Expert Opinions ......... 690
                        3. The Government's Remaining Objections ........................ 691
                           (a.) Defendant Did Not Rely on Opinions ..................... 691
                           (b.) Unavailability of Higgins at Trial ..................... 691
                        4. The ATF Opinion Letters Stating ATF Would Not Have Referred to
                            Customs Service Practices in the Circumstances Presented ... 692
                     B. THE GOVERNMENT'S CHALLENGES TO KERNS, GALLAGHER
                          AND GUERIN ................................................... 693
                        1. Kerns ....................................................... 693
                           (a.) Defendant Did Not Rely on Kerns ........................ 693
                           (b.) Defendant's Possession of the Sikorsky Memorandum ...... 693
                           (c.) Was the Sikorsky Memorandum Based on False
                                  Representations? ..................................... 694
                           (d.) The Schmidt 302 and Zemetis 302 ........................ 694
                        2. Gallagher .................................................. 695
                           (a.) Value-Added Theory ..................................... 695
                           (b.) Gallagher's Proposed Testimony was Cumulative .......... 695
                        3. Guerin ...................................................... 696
                          (a.) Speculation Regarding Guerin's Potential Testimony ...... 696
                          (b.) Guerin's Potentially Harmful Testimony .................. 697
                          (c.) Guerin's "Vague and Inadmissible Opinions" .............. 697
                          (d.) Strategic Decision Not to Call Guerin ................... 698
                          (e.) Guerin's Credibility .................................... 698
                          (f.) Guerin's Proposed Testimony Was Cumulative .............. 699
                 VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................ 699
                

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a habeas corpus action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by defendant, Thomas P. Jasin ("Jasin" or "defendant"), which arises out of defendant's conspiracy conviction in a complex prosecution for violation of the United States arms embargo against South Africa during the 1980s. By Memorandum and Order dated August 8, 2002, the Court granted in part defendant's habeas motion in part and vacated defendant's conviction. Presently before the Court is the Government's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting the Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("motion for reconsideration"). For the reasons that follow, the government's motion for reconsideration is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are fully presented in several of the Court's previously reported opinions. See, e.g., United States v. Jasin, Crim. A. No. 91-602-08, 1993 WL 259436, at *1-11 (E.D.Pa. July 7, 1993) (factual history); United States v. Jasin, 215 F.Supp.2d 552, 555-57 (E.D.Pa.2002) (post-conviction history). The following factual and procedural history is sufficient for the purpose of addressing the government's motion for reconsideration. Relevant facts are restated where necessary throughout the discussion section of this Memorandum.

On January 23, 2001, defendant filed his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255 motion"). In his § 2255 motion, defendant raised three arguments. The first and second arguments were based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)—that trial counsel was ineffective in his failure to (1) investigate, interview and call potential witnesses, and (2) object to the government's use at trial of defendant's statements made during proffer sessions with government representatives. In his third argument, defendant asserted that pre-and post-trial delay denied defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial and due process of law. Defendant withdrew the third argument by letter to the Court dated August 14, 2001, but reserved the right to re-raise it should the Court grant defendant a new trial.

On July 31, 2001, the Court conducted a telephone conference to discuss the need for an evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 motion. During the conference, the Court agreed with arguments by counsel that an evidentiary hearing was necessary on issues related to defendants' second claim for relief presented in the § 2255 motion— the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object at trial of defendant's statements made during proffer sessions with government representatives. Defense counsel also suggested that the witnesses trial counsel failed to interview or call at trial should testify at the hearing. The government took no position on that issue and the Court did not rule on it during the July 31, 2001 telephone conference.

By Order dated August 2, 2001, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on defendant's § 2255 motion for August 9, 2001. That same day, the Court by letter wrote to counsel to "clarify" the scope of the evidentiary hearing and oral argument. Specifically, the Court wrote that "I will expect a presentation of evidence on the issues we addressed in our telephone conference—the issue related to the use of evidence gathered during proffer sessions with Mr. Jasin and the related question of waiver by Mr. Jasin. If any of you disagree, I direct that you advise me in writing by return mail so that we can determine the scope of the evidentiary hearing in advance of August 9th." (emphasis added).

Defense counsel responded to the Court's letter by letter to the Court dated August 3, 2001. In that letter, defense counsel argued that an evidentiary hearing was warranted on all three issues raised in the § 2255 motion—the failure to investigate, the proffer agreement and the due process and speedy trial act violations. With respect to the first issue, the failure to investigate, defense counsel identified several witnesses—William Gallagher, John Kerns, James Guerin, Robert Yates, Vernon Acree, Stephen Higgins and Rex Davis—and stated that ". . . although there is no material dispute regarding the failure to investigate, there is a dispute regarding the impact of the witness' testimony at trial. For reasons stated in the 2255 Motion, an evidentiary hearing would provide the Court an opportunity to hear the witnesses and to judge their importance." Although some of those witnesses were not available to testify at the August 9, 2001 hearing, defense counsel asked the Court to proceed with the hearing, permit the testimony of the defense witnesses who were available to testify that day ". . . and make a ruling at that time as to what arrangements, if any, the Court will make to hear further testimony."

After receiving defense counsel's letter of August 3, 2001, the Court conducted a telephone conference with ...