In a habeas petition, the defendant claimed that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial counsel was ineffective for preventing him from testifying. A jury convicted the defendant of drug crimes for acts he committed while on parole. It was undisputed that he fled from parole. He claimed he did so after various minor violations. The government contended he absconded was because he knew his large drug distribution operation was crumbling. In the petition, the defendant asserted that he wanted to testify at trial. The District Court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing because the government’s case against the defendant was more than adequate to convict even without the evidence of his absconding from parole. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the District Court’s reasoning was not an appropriate application of the Strickland test.
