Hamett Diaz v. Pennsylvania, et al.

Petitioner Hamett Diaz received the ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney. As a result, he was convicted of rape of an unconscious person in Pennsylvania state court even though the complainant testified that she believed the assault was a dream. There were no other witnesses to the alleged assault or forensic evidence which proved that it occurred. Diaz was convicted because his trial attorney inexplicably failed to object when the complainant herself and nearly every other witness who testified at trial said that Diaz’s stepdaughter, K.C., who would not even have been present for the alleged assault, confirmed that the rape occurred. Barring the application of an exception, hearsay is inadmissible in state and federal court. Neither the prosecution nor any of the courts to address the issue have ever suggested that this hearsay would have been admissible under any exception to the rule. Instead, the Commonwealth and the lower courts concluded that trial counsel acted reasonably strategically in failing to object to this directly incriminating hearsay from a witness who the jury would have expected Diaz to produce to say it was not true. No one has ever explained how that could be. Trial counsel’s decision was not strategic. The admission of the out-of-court statements that Diaz’s stepdaughter believed he committed the rape of her 17-year-old friend directly led to his wrongful conviction. The complainant thought the incident was a dream. Therefore, the question presented is: Whether the Third Circuit erred in failing to find that trial counsel provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the admission of