Long v. United States, No. 16-2820 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's claim under 28 U.S.C. 2255, alleging that counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to testimony concerning his statement to an agent or to a remark the Government made during closing arguments about his decision not to testify. Petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to life in prison. The court held that counsel did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the Government's use of his pre-arrest, pre-Miranda statement to the agent. Given the split of authority at the time petitioner was tried, and the complete lack of Eighth Circuit or Supreme Court authority on the subject, counsel's performance fell within the wide range of professionally competent assistance.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not err in denying Long's ineffective assistance of counsel at trial claim; counsel did not violate Long's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the Government's use of his pre-arrest, pre-Miranda statement to law enforcement; the court noted in Long's direct appeal that the law was not settled on this issue and that there was a complete lack of Eighth Circuit authority on the question; as such, counsel's performance in not challenging the testimony was within the wide range of professionally competent counsel. For Long's direct appeal, see U.S. v. Long, 721 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2013).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.