If your trial lawyer made serious mistakes — like not calling key witnesses, not letting you testify, or conceding guilt — and those mistakes likely changed the verdict, you may have an ineffective-assistance claim under § 2255.
A federal trial is complicated, and not every lawyer handles one well. The published decisions below show some of the ways courts have found, or ordered a hearing on, ineffective assistance at trial. These are other people’s cases, not results obtained by this firm.
What trial mistakes have courts recognized?
- Rayborn v. United States, 489 Fed.Appx. 871 (6th Cir. 2012). Trial lawyer’s failure to provide adequate advice and preparation for testimony was prejudicial to defendant and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Lopez v. United States, 522 Fed.Appx. 684 (11th Cir. 2013). Remand for IAC determination where counsel prohibited the defendant from exercising his right to testify.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Ward v. United States, 995 F.2d 1317 (6th Cir. 1993). Counsel was ineffective where he opened the door to otherwise inadmissible character evidence, made illogical and incomprehensible comments on the record, and acted inappropriately towards the government.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- United States v. Holder, 410 F.3d 651 (10th Cir. 2005). Remand for IAC determination where trial lawyer failed to call the only two witnesses to the shooting.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Koskela v. United States, 235 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2001). Remand for IAC determination where counsel failed to present the alibi defense and alibi witnesses.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Gonzalez-Soberal v. United States, 244 F.3d 273 (1st Cir. 2001). Trial lawyer was ineffective where he failed to use documentary evidence to impeach the only adverse witness.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Hughes v. United States, 258 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2001). Counsel was ineffective where he failed to strike a juror who expressly stated that she could not be fair.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Brown v. United States, 167 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1999). Counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge obviously deficient reasonable doubt instructions.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- United States v. Swanson, 943 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1991). Trial lawyer was ineffective where he conceded to the jury that there was no reasonable doubt as to the ultimate facts.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Smith v. United States, 182 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 1999). Remand for IAC determination where counsel failed to object to defendant’s appearance at trial in an orange jumpsuit.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2013). Where trial lawyer failed to raise an obvious statute of limitations defense, he provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Section 2255 relief granted.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
Common questions
My trial lawyer was terrible. Can I file a § 2255 motion?
Possibly. Many people feel their lawyer did a bad job, and a bad result alone does not prove it. You must show two things: your lawyer’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different without the errors. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).
My lawyer would not let me testify. Is that ineffective assistance?
It can be. The decision whether to testify belongs to you, not your lawyer. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). Courts have ordered hearings on claims that a lawyer kept a defendant from testifying — see Lopez above. You will still need to show what you would have said and how it likely would have changed the verdict.
My lawyer would not investigate my defense or find my witnesses. Was he ineffective?
Possibly. Failing to investigate or to locate helpful witnesses is a common basis for these claims. You will need to show who the witnesses were, what they would have said, and why it likely would have mattered. If this happened in your case, book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk it through.
Related pages
Cognizable Claims: The Court Lacked Jurisdiction
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates the Constitution
Cognizable Claims: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Pretrial
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Sentencing
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Appeal
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates Federal Law
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence is Otherwise Subject to Collateral Attack
Questions about your case? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.