Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3242 Rodriguez v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//April 15, 2002//

00-3242 Rodriguez v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//April 15, 2002//

Listen to this article

“Rodriguez also claims that his counsel’s performance was substandard because he effectively entered a guilty plea by conceding that Rodriguez delivered ten ounces of marijuana to Michael Cook, a former conspirator who was, at the time, in Texas cooperating with the government. During the trial, Cook testified that Rodriguez provided him with the ten ounces of marijuana as proof of the quality of his supply. Then, in closing arguments, Rodriguez’s attorney conceded that this drug delivery had occurred, but argued that it was not in furtherance of the conspiracy but rather part of Rodriguez’s scheme to defraud Cook and the other conspirators. Rodriguez argues that this argument in closing, accompanied by the failure of his trial counsel to request a jury instruction based on venue, ultimately required the jury to find him guilty. However, Rodriguez’s counsel’s concession did not require a finding of guilty on the conspiracy charge. Instead, it was a reasonable element of his strategy to show that Rodriguez was acting against the conspiracy.”

“Moreover, as this court has recognized, lawyers may reasonably acknowledge, as part of a trial strategy, that on a particular count the evidence against their client is overwhelming. See Underwood v. Clark, 939 F.2d 473, 474 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding that a counsel’s admission of guilt during closing arguments was reasonable as a tactical decision to gain favor with the jury). Courts should not ‘second-guess trial tactics that are rationally based.’… In this case, with the large amount of evidence presented against Rodriguez, this strategy appears quite reasonable. If the jury had believed his theory of defense, then he would not have been guilty of a crime involving over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, but instead only guilty of a crime involving approximately 300 grams of marijuana. This would have decreased his maximum sentence from life imprisonment to ten years. See 21 U.S.C. sec. 841(b)(1)(A) & (D). In fact, the trial court noted that Rodriguez’s counsel’s closing argument was ‘actually quite compelling.’ Because this tactic was reasonable as trial strategy, Rodriguez’s claim fails under Strickland.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Curran, J., Manion, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests