United States v. Mohsenzadeh
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- United States v. Harry E. ClaiborneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mohsenzadeh v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003