The Eleventh Circuit had no sympathy for Stewart and Michael Parnell’s attempt to crack open their convictions over the infamous peanut salmonella outbreak.
In a decision (by Judge Carnes, joined by Chief Judge Pryor and Judge Luck) affirming the denial of their § 2255 motions, the court held that even if the brothers could show a Skilling presumption of jury prejudice, that alone doesn’t prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Both Strickland prongs — deficient performance and prejudice — still have to be met.
The Parnells argued their lawyers should have moved the trial away from the Albany Division, given extensive media coverage and community hostility. But the court found the defense teams — six lawyers with 122 years of combined experience — made a deliberate, strategic choice to stay put. Why? They believed a rural, peanut-savvy jury was their best shot at a “government overreach” defense and might be more forgiving about plant conditions.
As the panel put it:
“The unanimous decisions of the two defense teams not to seek a change of venue… was a strategic decision… virtually unchallengeable.”
And in one of the more candid moments from trial counsel:
“[My] concern… was not so much that the motion lacked merit — it was that it would be granted.”
In other words, the Parnells’ lawyers didn’t want the trial to be moved.
No comments:
Post a Comment