UNITED STATES of America v. Tyrone Anthony GRAY
878 F.2d 702 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defense counsel's complete failure to conduct any pre-trial investigation into a defendant's only defense falls below the objective standard of reasonableness. Prejudice is established if there is a reasonable probability that testimony from a known but un-interviewed witness would have corroborated the defendant's story and undermined a weak prosecution case, thereby creating a reasonable doubt as to guilt.
Facts:
- On August 23, 1986, Tyrone Gray, a convicted felon, was involved in a street fight with a man named Joseph Johnson outside Mecrecco's bar.
- Gray and his brother, Sherwood Robinson, had been at the bar celebrating Robinson's birthday.
- Gray stepped outside, argued with his ex-girlfriend, Francine Heath, and was then attacked by Johnson, who was Heath's current boyfriend.
- During the fight, Gray claimed that a .22 caliber pistol and ammunition fell from Johnson's pocket.
- Gray picked up the gun and the bullets from the ground.
- Shortly thereafter, police officers arrived and found the loaded pistol and loose ammunition in Gray's pockets during a pat-down search.
- Gray later informed his court-appointed attorney, Michael Witherel, that he had taken the gun in self-defense and provided the names of potential witnesses, including Francine Heath.
- Witherel made no effort to visit the scene of the incident, hire an investigator, or contact any potential witnesses himself, instead instructing Gray to find and bring witnesses to his office.
Procedural Posture:
- Tyrone Gray was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a guilty verdict.
- The district court sentenced Gray to the mandatory minimum of fifteen years imprisonment.
- Gray filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found counsel's performance was deficient, but concluded there was no prejudice and denied Gray's motion.
- Gray (Appellant) appealed the denial of his § 2255 motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense counsel's complete failure to conduct any pre-trial investigation, including not interviewing known potential witnesses for a self-defense claim, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced the defendant's trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloviter, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A defense counsel's complete failure to conduct any pre-trial investigation constitutes deficient performance, and this deficiency is prejudicial when there is a reasonable probability that testimony from a known, un-interviewed witness would have created reasonable doubt in a weak government case. The court applied the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington. First, counsel's performance was deficient because he completely abdicated his 'duty to investigate' by failing to visit the scene, contact known witnesses, or hire an investigator. This was not a strategic decision but a 'lack of diligence,' and delegating the entire investigation to the defendant falls below the minimum standard of reasonable professional representation. Second, this failure was prejudicial because the government's case was 'thin' and featured contradictory police testimony. Testimony from Francine Heath, a known but un-interviewed witness, would have identified Gray's attacker, established his motive and prior threats to kill Gray, and corroborated that the attacker was the aggressor. This evidence is significant enough to create a 'reasonable probability' of a different outcome, thereby undermining confidence in the jury's verdict.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the non-delegable nature of a defense counsel's duty to conduct a reasonable pre-trial investigation under the Strickland standard. It clarifies that a complete failure to investigate is presumptively deficient performance, not a strategic choice. Furthermore, the ruling provides a clear example of how prejudice can be established even when a new witness did not observe the central criminal act; testimony that provides context, corroborates the defendant's theory, and undermines a weak prosecution case can be sufficient to undermine confidence in the trial's outcome. This case serves as a strong precedent against passive lawyering and emphasizes the attorney's affirmative duty to seek out evidence supporting a client's defense.
Unlock the full brief for UNITED STATES of America v. Tyrone Anthony GRAY