Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneytrialpleamotionguilty plea
defendanttrialpleamotionguilty plea

Related Cases

Herrera-Corral v. Hyman, 408 Ill.App.3d 672, 948 N.E.2d 242, 350 Ill.Dec. 173
View Case »
Herbits v. Constitution Indem. Co. of Philadelphia, 279 Mass. 539, 181 N.E. 723
View Case »
Whiting Corp. v. White Machinery Corp., 567 F.2d 713
View Case »
Limerick v. Greenwald, 749 F.2d 97, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 907
View Case »
Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 36 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1288, 1997 Fed.App. 0094P
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kluger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4145902

Facts

Matthew Kluger was involved in a long-running insider trading scheme from 1994 to 2011, during which he provided confidential information to co-conspirators for illegal stock trading. After being arrested, Kluger pled guilty to multiple charges, including securities fraud and obstruction of justice, despite having damaging evidence against him. He later filed a motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his attorney failed to investigate the venue and the factual basis for his guilty plea.

This case involved what the government described as one of the longest-running insider trading schemes ever investigated and prosecuted in the United States.

Issue

Did Kluger receive ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the venue of his trial and the factual basis for his guilty plea?

Did Kluger receive ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the venue of his trial and the factual basis for his guilty plea?

Rule

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington.

Analysis

The court applied the Strickland standard and found that Kluger had waived any venue defense by pleading guilty. It determined that the venue was proper in New Jersey based on the execution of trades through servers located there. Kluger’s claims of ineffective assistance were deemed speculative and without merit, as he failed to demonstrate how he would have rejected the plea deal had he been properly advised.

The court applied the Strickland standard and found that Kluger had waived any venue defense by pleading guilty.

Conclusion

The court denied Kluger's motion to vacate his sentence, concluding that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.

The court denied Kluger's motion to vacate his sentence, concluding that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Kluger’s claims of ineffective assistance were without merit and that he had waived any venue defense by pleading guilty.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Kluger’s claims of ineffective assistance were without merit and that he had waived any venue defense by pleading guilty.

You must be