United States v. Hebshie

754 F.Supp.2d 89 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was convicted of arson and mail fraud in June 2006 for an April 2001 fire in a commercial building. D was leasing space in the building for his convenience store. After exhausting his appeals, D filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The government had to prove that a crime had been committed. It had to prove that the fire was intentionally set, rather than accidental -- and that D was the perpetrator. The government relied on two kinds of evidence -- first, the 'cause-and-origin' forensics expert who testified about where and how the fire started, and second, the testimony of the handler of an 'accelerant-detection dog' and a laboratory technician to prove that it was incendiary in nature. The government demonstrated that D leased space in the building for his convenience store, that he owed roughly $5,000 to lottery authorities, that he was trying to sell the store, and that he sought to recover on an insurance policy. When D's trial took place, a number of articles in legal journals and cases cast a critical eye on the scientific reliability of arson evidence, methodologies, and techniques. D's trial counsel had been specifically warned about deficiencies in this case by predecessor counsel and by the experts retained by them. When the Court pointedly inquired during the trial, not once, but three times, whether there would be a challenge to the arson expert testimony, the laboratory analysis, or the canine handler's testimony, even when the Court suggested it was willing to suspend the trial in order to conduct such a hearing, counsel declined. P’s counsel never challenged the validity or reliability of the testimony of Sergeant David Domingos (Domingos), the government's 'cause-and-origin' arson expert; John Drugan (Drugan), the laboratory technician; or Sergeant Douglas Lynch (Lynch), the accelerant-detection dog handler, either prior to or during the trial, much less called for any limitations on their testimony even when there were substantial grounds to do so. P was convicted and lost all of his appeals. P has now filed for habeas corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel.