United States of America v. Hosseini

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM Order and Attachment: It is unclear just what action defendant Hosseini now seeks from this Court on his repetition of some of his earlier-voiced contentions, no relief on this Court's part is called for. Accordingly defendant Hosseini's current submission -- treated as a motion -- is denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/11/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMIR HOSSEINI,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13 C 2472
(05 CR 254)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Earlier this week this Court received the attached two-page letter from Amir Hosseini
("Hosseini"), together with a bulky document that appears to be a draft of an as-yet-unfiled
petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the United States Supreme Court. Because the
attached letter does not show that a copy was sent to the United States Attorney's Office, so that
it is most likely an ex parte communication, this Court is delivering copies of this memorandum
order and the letter to that office.
It is unclear from Hosseini's letter just what relief he is seeking from this Court, which
issued a memorandum opinion and order (the "Opinion") last September 12 addressing and
rejecting each of the 11 grounds that Hosseini had advanced in a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255
("Section 2255") motion by which he attempted to seek relief from his conviction and sentence.
It appears that Hosseini's principal current focus points to three matters already dealt with in the
Opinion:
1.

the delay in obtaining the trial transcript for Hosseini's direct appeal (the
subject of his Section 2255 Ground Three);

2.

the asserted inadequacy of representation by Hosseini's trial counsel on the
issue of his possible testimony at trial (the subject of his Section 2255
Ground Four); and

3.

a purported error by the government in the version of the indictment
transmitted to the trial jury (the subject of his Section 2255 Grounds
Seven through Ten).

Because each of those issues was among the grounds advanced by Hosseini's Section 2255
motion, this memorandum order will simply repeat what was said on those issues in the Opinion:
Ground Three charges the denial of effective assistance of counsel and of due
process on appeal attributable to the admittedly lengthy delay in obtaining trial
transcripts. Here too Hosseini's ordered supplement added nothing to his original
argument, and the government's original response presented a comprehensive
refutation of any potential argument of prejudice flowing from the delays.
Indeed, Hosseini's appellate counsel expressly raised the issue of typographic
errors in the direct appeal, which among other things demonstrated a lack of
prejudice.
*

*

*

Ground Four, which garnered the most space in Hosseini's supplemental pleading
devoted to the Strickland "prejudice" issue, contends that Hosseini's trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance through not honoring Hosseini's request to testify
at trial. On that score Hosseini's own submission makes it crystal clear that he
would have been a fool to testify at trial and that his trial counsel was more than
reasonable in counseling him not to consider doing so. Though Hosseini states
(no doubt accurately) that he cannot recall just what he would have testified to, he
then proceeds to present in considerable detail what he believes his anticipated
trial testimony would be. Both in part and in its entirety, such contemplated
testimony would unquestionably have been harmful rather than helpful to his
cause2 -- and that adverse consequence would carry with it the risk of his being
opened up to extensive cross-examination.
At trial Hosseini was represented by several lawyers, with the lead counsel being
Patrick Tuite, widely recognized as one of the preeminent criminal defense
lawyers in this area. Attorney Tuite is no longer engaged in the practice of law,
and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission website has no
information as how to reach him. Instead his then associate John Grady has
-2-

provided a 5-page affidavit (his signature and the jurat are the only contents on
page 6 of the document) that correctly observes that Hosseini's motion has waived
the attorney-client privilege on the subject and goes on to discuss in detail the
careful way in which attorneys Tuite and Grady (and sometimes another associate
who was a member of the trial team) went over, at considerable length, the
question of Hosseini's testimony vel non at trial.
______________________________
2
Indeed, Hosseini's description and the affidavit of his second chair counsel
John Grady (discussed a bit later) create the virtual certainty that if Hosseini had
testified, a good Section 2255 motion argument could be made for a finding of
ineffective assistance in allowing him to do so. Surely Hosseini cannot seek to
have it both ways.
*

*

*

Grounds Seven through Ten ring several changes on the figurative bell that
comprises charges that an incorrect version of the indictment was delivered to the
jury, together with the jury instructions and verdict form, for purposes of the
jury's deliberations. In that respect this Court had issued several rulings that
called for redaction of portions of the indictment, and nothing that Hosseini has
submitted provides any predicate for believing that the version tendered to the
jury did not match up with those required redactions. Hosseini's speculation to
the contrary carries no weight. All four of those Grounds provide no basis for
Section 2255 relief.
In sum, though it is unclear just what action Hosseini now seeks from this Court on his
repetition of some of his earlier-voiced contentions, no relief on this Court's part is called for.
Accordingly Hosseini's current submission -- treated as a motion -- is denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 11, 2015

-3-

ATTACHMENT