Heron v. Griffin

6 Citing cases

  1. Stallone v. Kopp

    23-CV-7865 (GRB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2024)

    Given the overwhelming evidence against Petitioner presented by other witnesses, he fails to establish that the outcome of the trial would have been different had he testified and attempted to impeach the medical assistant about her seeing him riding the bicycle on November 16, 2016. See Heron v. Griffin, No. 18-CV-00004, 2019 WL 1050011, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019) (“[H]ad petitioner testified, it is highly unlikely that the jury would have credited his testimony given the overwhelming evidence [against him].”).

  2. Williams v. United States

    707 F. Supp. 3d 251 (W.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Specifically, "the Court concludes that there is no 'reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different'" if Petitioner had testified. Heron v. Griffin, No. 18-CV-00004 (JFB), 2019 WL 1050011, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019) (citation omitted). Although not specified in any great detail, Petitioner seems to suggest that had he testified he would have testified that "much of the testimony of the witnesses against him was either incorrect or completely untrue."

  3. Hansen v. Johnson

    680 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Where there is a claim involving an "off the record interaction" with trial counsel, the habeas court "cannot just rely on the motion, files, and records before the district court." Heron v. Griffin, No. 18-CV-00004 (JFB), 2019 WL 1050011, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019) (quoting Chang, 250 F.3d at 85.) An evidentiary hearing is not required, though, if the record is supplemented with a detailed affidavit from trial counsel describing the circumstances surrounding the petitioner's failure to testify.

  4. Wynn v. Lee

    9:19-CV-209 (BKS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    “[A] petitioner has the ‘burden of providing the court sufficiently precise information, that is, a comprehensive showing as to what the investigation would have produced.'” Heron v. Griffin, No. 18-CV-00004 (JFB), 2019 WL 1050011, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019) (quoting Taylor v. Poole, No. 07-CV-6318 (RJH/GWG), 2009 WL 2634724, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2009), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 3809887 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2011)); see also DeJohn v. United States, No. 5:05-CR-347(NAM), 2014 WL 12691146, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2014) (quoting Taylor, 2009 WL 2634724, at *14 (“[A] petitioner must do more than make vague, conclusory, or speculative claims as to what evidence could have been produced by further investigation.”)

  5. Fulton v. Superintendent

    Civil Action 20 Civ. 0021 (GBD) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    “[A] petitioner has the ‘burden of providing the court sufficiently precise information, that is, a comprehensive showing as to what the investigation would have produced.'” Heron v. Griffin, No. 18 Civ. 00004 (JFB), 2019 WL 1050011, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019) (quoting Taylor v. Poole, No. 07 Civ. 6318 (RJH) (GWG), 2009 WL 2634724, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2009), adopted by, 2011 WL 3809887 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2011); see Wood v. Artus, No. 15 Civ. 4602 (SJF), 2020 WL 3256848, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. June 15, 2020) (“[A] petitioner must do more than make vague, conclusory, or speculative claims as to what evidence could have been produced by further investigation.”)

  6. Witherspoon v. Colvin

    18-CV-4816 (LDH) (TAM) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    afforded a “heavy measure of deference.” Heron v. Griffin, No. 18-CV-0004 (JFB), 2019 WL 1050011, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91). In order to prevail on such a claim, the petitioner “has the ‘burden of providing the court sufficiently precise information, that is, a comprehensive showing as to what the investigation would have produced.'” Id.