Rodney Anton Williamson v. United States

The right to counsel in this case was violated by the prosecution surreptitiously recording Petitioner after indictment and before arrest and arraignment in violation of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), by ineffective and conflict-ladened performance by trial counsel and by appellate counsel mishandling the Massiah issues; by the trial court rushing unprepared counsel into trial on the same day he appeared in place of counsel who withdrew once he learned the devastating statements on the tape recording upended his trial strategy; by representation by counsel in conflict with the client; by denying Rule 33 motions as untimely; by denying appointed substitute counsel after verdict for assistance in a new trial motion asserting the ineffectiveness and conflicts of interest of trial counsel although allowing trial counsel to withdraw due to the conflicts; by trial and appellate court rulings misconstruing this Court’s right to counsel decisions in Massiah; and by neglecting ineffective counsel in analyzing Massiah and other errors for prejudice. Petitioner raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and denial of counsel claims pro se at numerous points along the torturous path of this case through the courts, only to be met at every point with the response that the claims are not cognizable until heard at the trial court upon evidentiary hearing to amplify the otherwise cold record. And yet, Petitioner’s pro se effort to raise some of these counsel issues post-verdict and pre-sentencing by Rule 33(b)(2) motion was denied as untimely, albeit the untimeliness was due to neglect of the trial counsel that