U.S. v. Richardson

Full title: United States of America, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Carl Lee Richardson…

Court: United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: May 27, 2010

Criminal No. 07-35(1) (RHK/AJB) (D. Minn. May. 27, 2010)

Opinion

Criminal No. 07-35(1) (RHK/AJB).

May 27, 2010

ORDER

RICHARD KYLE, District Judge

In his Section 2255 Motion now before the Court, Defendant asserts six claims for relief. Of these six claims, four¹ were raised and rejected by the Eighth Circuit in his direct appeal.See United States v. Richardson, 357 F.3d 951 (8^th Cir. 2008), and cannot now be re-litigated in his Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Shabazz, 657 F.2 189 (8^th Cir. 1981); Dall v. United States, 957 F.2d 571 (8^th Cir. 1992); United States v. Kraemer, 810 F.2d 173 (8^th Cir. 1987).

1 The four claims are: (a) the introduction of DNA testing through a BCA forensic chemist; (b) holding the trial on the same day the Court dismissed the original indictment without prejudice and the Government re-indicted the Defendant on the identical charges; (c) holding the trial in Duluth, Minnesota, and securing a jury pool from that area of the District rather than in St. Paul, Minnesota, where the crime transpired; and (d) he was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The only two issues now raised, which were not presented to the Eighth Circuit, require no evidentiary hearing.

First, Defendant argues that the requirement of an interstate commerce element was proved through use of inadmissible hearsay testimony of a special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives. The witness's background, experience and specialized training qualified her to opine on where the subject firearm was manufactured — Springfield, Massachusetts. She was not cross-examined by defense counsel. The argument is without merit.

Finally, Defendant asserts that his counsel provided ineffective assistance at trial by not objecting to the testimony of the witness regarding the origin of the firearm and by acting "very clumsily while cross-examining" a witness. This argument is also without merit.

Accordingly, and upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that the Section 2255 Motion (Doc. No. 38) is DENIED and the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.