Danny Harvey v. United States

Following Petitioner Danny Michael Harvey’s federal felony conviction in May 2009, his former appellate attorney, Meredith Ahearn, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in January

Harvey’s petition was denied, and he asked Ahearn to appeal the denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Months later, Ahearn wrote to Harvey apologizing for not corresponding sooner, and telling Harvey that the court had denied him a Certificate of Appealability. This was a lie; Ahearn had never filed a notice of appeal of the denial of Harvey’s habeas petition. Earlier, at the trial stage, Harvey’s trial counsel, Anne Marshall, failed to inform him of the defense she intended to raise, the evidence against him, and trial strategy or tactics. Harvey had almost no significant communication with Marshall before trial. Harvey wished to testify, but trial counsel failed to provide him enough information to make an informed decision, and, as a result, he did not testify. Marshall’s demeanor before the jury conveyed insouciance and lack of preparation. She made only a few of the objections that should have been made; failed to object to evidence not produced in discovery; and failed to argue the lack of evidence of intent to commit the crime charged, despite the legal appropriateness of that argument. There was a reasonable probability that had Marshall objected when she should have, had argued the evidence of lack of intent available to her, and had presented a reasonably competent defense, the outcome of trial would have been different.