Moore v. Beard
42 F. Supp. 3d 624, 2014 WL 4231248, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118694 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant establishes ineffective assistance of counsel by showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defense. Deficient performance includes the failure to conduct a thorough investigation of a key exculpatory witness and the failure to impeach a crucial prosecution witness with available evidence of bias.
Facts:
- On October 1, 1982, an armed robbery at the Forty-Fort Animal Hospital in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania resulted in the death of Nicholas Romanchick, who was shot in the back.
- The robbers, two men, fled after taking Ms. Romanchick's purse.
- Prosecutors identified Tyrone Moore as the shooter based primarily on the testimony of co-defendant Ricardo Scott.
- Scott testified that he, Moore, and Anthony Brad Jones planned and executed the robbery, with Moore as the shooter.
- Moore maintained an alibi, testifying that he was in Philadelphia at a boxing gym at the time of the robbery.
- Co-defendant Anthony Brad Jones was available and willing to testify on Moore's behalf, stating that the third perpetrator was a man named Emmet Burgis, not Moore, and that Scott had confessed to being the shooter.
- Moore's defense counsel had Jones brought to the courthouse but, after a brief five-to-ten-minute conversation, decided not to call him as a witness.
- Scott was testifying as part of a plea agreement with the prosecution, which significantly reduced his potential sentence and was contingent on his cooperation.
Procedural Posture:
- Tyrone Moore was first tried in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania in May 1983, which resulted in a mistrial.
- Moore was retried in September 1983 in the same court and was convicted by a jury on charges of first-degree murder and related offenses.
- Over the next two decades, Moore exhausted his direct appeals and post-conviction collateral review proceedings in the Pennsylvania state courts.
- On April 27, 2005, Moore filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- The district court denied Moore's petition on December 11, 2007.
- Moore, the petitioner-appellant, appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- On January 9, 2012, the Third Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the district court, ordering it to hold an evidentiary hearing on Moore's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
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 failure to call a key exculpatory witness and failure to impeach the prosecution's star witness with evidence of his favorable plea agreement constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner
Yes, a defense counsel's failure to call a key exculpatory witness and failure to impeach the prosecution's star witness constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial under the Strickland v. Washington standard. The performance was deficient because counsel failed to properly and thoroughly interview a critical exculpatory witness, Anthony Brad Jones, and then failed to call him to testify. One of Moore's attorneys conceded this was 'wrong' and not a strategic decision. Furthermore, counsel failed to impeach the prosecution's key witness, Ricardo Scott, with powerful evidence of his plea agreement, which demonstrated a strong motivation to lie. The attorney could offer no strategic reason for this omission. This deficient performance was prejudicial because the case against Moore was not overwhelming. Jones's testimony would have directly contradicted Scott's, identified another person as the third perpetrator, and corroborated the testimony of another defense witness. Effectively impeaching Scott's credibility by exposing his 'great deal' would have severely weakened the prosecution's entire case, creating a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.
Analysis:
This case serves as a powerful application of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly in the context of a habeas corpus petition filed decades after the conviction. It demonstrates that even with the high deference typically afforded to counsel's strategic decisions, a complete failure to investigate or utilize critical exculpatory and impeachment evidence can overcome that deference. The court's reliance on counsel's own admission of inadequate investigation highlights how post-conviction evidentiary hearings can be crucial in establishing deficiency. The decision reinforces the fundamental duties of defense counsel to thoroughly investigate the case and to vigorously challenge the credibility of key government witnesses, especially those who are testifying in exchange for leniency.
