Legal Opinion

United States v. Mohsenzadeh

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 11, 2003No. 00-50512; D.C. No. CR-99-00280-CAS-01PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mohsenzadeh’s motion *335for a new trial. On the current record, the representation provided by Mohsenzadeh’s trial counsel did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Trial counsel’s decision not to introduce evidence of Mohsenzadeh’s membership in Mujahedin-e-Khalq or to investigate or present possible evidence of selective prosecution was a reasonable tactical decision that we decline to second-guess. See United States v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. United States v. Harry E. ClaiborneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mohsenzadeh v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API