BASKERVILLE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the respondent's request to bifurcate the 7/15/2019 evidentiary hearing is granted such that this Court will accept testimony at that hearing from petitioner's trial counsel as well as petitioner regarding the rema ining claims; that should this Court determine that after the 7/15/2019 hearing that Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville's testimony is necessary to resolve the remaining claims, this Court will so alert the parties in due course. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 5/06/2019. (jem)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM BASKERVILLE,
Petitioner,

Civ. No. 13-5881 (PGS)

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding with a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255.

On November 15, 2018, this Court denied most

petitioner’s claims. However, this Court reserved judgment on petitioner’s claims that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/call Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville as
witnesses at his trial along with petitioner’s claim that the government failed to provide him with
a copy of Roderick Boyd’s F.B.I. 302 report.’
Counsel, Mr. Bruce L. Throckmorton, Esq., was then appointed to represent petitioner at
a yet to be scheduled evidentiary hearing on these remaining claims. Thereafter, respondent
submitted a request to bifurcate the upcoming evidentiary hearing. Respondent requests
bifurcating the evidentiary hearing such that this Court hear from petitioner’s trial counsel first
prior to hearing from Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville. According to respondent, this
would be perfectly proper because trial counsel’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing could
possibly be dispositive under the first prong of the Strickland v. Washington, 466 US. 668 (1984)

Because this Court reserved judgment on petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim to
call/investigate Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville, this Court also reserved judgment on
petitioner’s cumulative ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

which would then eliminate the need to hear testimony from Hakeem Curry and Rakeem
Baskerville.
This Court agrees and will grant respondent’s request to bifurcate the now scheduled July
15, 2019 evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, this Court will accept testimony from petitioner’s
trial counsel as well as petitioner regarding the remaining claims (which includes testimony
related to Boyd’s 302 report). Should the Court determine after that July 15, 2019 hearing that
Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville’s testimony is necessary to resolve the remaining claims,
this Court will so alert the parties in due course.
Accordingly, IT IS this

(,

day of May, 2019,

ORDERED that respondent’s request to bifurcate the July 15, 2019 evidentiary hearing is
granted such that this Court will accept testimony at that hearing from petitioner’s trial counsel
as well as petitioner regarding the remaining claims; and it is further
ORDERED that should this Court determine that after the July 15, 2019 hearing that
Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville’s testimony is necessary to resolve the remaining claims,
this Court will so alert the parties in due course.

PETER G. SHERIDAN
United States District Judge

2