From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Caro

United States District Court,W.D. Virginia,Abingdon Division.
May 4, 2015
102 F. Supp. 3d 813 (W.D. Va. 2015)

Summary

noting district courts' discretion regarding whether to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte

Summary of this case from Best v. United States

Opinion

Case No. 1:06CR00001.

05-04-2015

UNITED STATES of America v. Carlos David CARO, Defendant.

Anthony P. Giorno, Acting United States Attorney, and Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke and Charlottesville, VA, for United States. Dale A. Baich and Robin C. Konrad, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, and Fay F. Spence and Brian J. Beck, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Roanoke and Abingdon, VA, for Defendant.


Anthony P. Giorno, Acting United States Attorney, and Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke and Charlottesville, VA, for United States.

Dale A. Baich and Robin C. Konrad, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, and Fay F. Spence and Brian J. Beck, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Roanoke and Abingdon, VA, for Defendant.

OPINION

JAMES P. JONES, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Background

823

II.

Standards of Review

828

III.

Analysis

829

A.

Claim I: Strategic Delay of the Indictment

829

B.

Claim II: Deprivation of Effective Assistance of Counsel at the Death Certification Stage

831

C.

Claim III: Juror Misconduct

832

D.

Claim IV: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel During Guilt

/Innocence Phase

834

1.

Cohesive Theory of Defense

834

2.

Impeachment of Sean Bullock

835

3.

Prison Culture and Cell Placement

836

4.

Self Defense, Second–Degree Murder, or Manslaughter

837

5.

Cumulative Error

837

E.

Claim V: Brady Violations Concerning Bullock

838

F.

Claim VI: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel During Penalty Phase

838

1.

Failure to Challenge Delay of Indictment

838

2.

Failure to Develop A Compelling Mitigation Story

838

3.

Failure to Challenge Government's Evidence that Caro was a Gang Leader

841

4.

Failure to Challenge Government's Evidence Regarding BOP's Ability to Control Improper Inmate Communications

841

5.

Failure to Present Evidence on Prison Culture and Statements of Remorse

842

6.

Failure to Challenge Conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Murder Related to Benavidez Assault

843

7.

Failure to Present Skipper Evidence

843

8.

Failure to Present Evidence of BOP Negligence Regarding Decision to Place Sandoval in Caro's Cell

844

9.

Failure to Object to Government's Evidence on Specific Instances of Violence by Persons Other than Caro

845

10.

Failure to Object to Improper Arguments During Government's Closing

845

11.

Failure to Move to Strike Sleeping Juror

846

12.

Cumulative Error

847

G.

Claim VII: Brady Violations Concerning Future Dangerousness

847

1.

BOP Housing Information

847

2.

Information on Caro's Status as a Gang Leader

851


Summaries of

United States v. Caro

United States District Court,W.D. Virginia,Abingdon Division.
May 4, 2015
102 F. Supp. 3d 813 (W.D. Va. 2015)

noting district courts' discretion regarding whether to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte

Summary of this case from Best v. United States
Case details for

United States v. Caro

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America v. Carlos David CARO, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court,W.D. Virginia,Abingdon Division.

Date published: May 4, 2015

Citations

102 F. Supp. 3d 813 (W.D. Va. 2015)

Citing Cases

United States v. Taylor

"It is well settled that defense counsel must conduct a reasonable investigation into mitigating evidence to…

United States v. Caro

After he killed Sandoval, Caro yelled to a passing guard: "[G]et this piece of shit out of here." United…