Deenvaughn Rowe was convicted in 2017 of conspiracy to commit bribery, substantive bribery, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 97 months in prison and 48 months of supervised release. During his direct appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed his convictions but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective. On remand, Rowe alleged that his lawyer failed to investigate and call witnesses who could verify that other employees used his login credentials, failed to interview individuals regarding his claimed lawful income streams, and neglected to review certain discovery with him. The District Court denied all claims after an evidentiary hearing, and Rowe appealed that denial to the D.C. Circuit.
The court applied the two-pronged test from Strickland v. Washington, which requires a defendant to show both that counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defense. The court noted that it need not address the performance prong if the defendant fails to show prejudice. Rowe failed to meet this burden. Regarding the alleged failure to call witnesses, the court found Rowe presented zero evidence—no affidavits or documents—showing that these witnesses would have offered testimony affecting the trial's outcome, especially since counsel had already elicited testimony on cross-examination regarding the ease of logging into the office computers. Regarding the failure to investigate income sources, Rowe offered no proof that interviews with a football pool participant or his business partner would have yielded favorable testimony. The court cited United States v. Valencia-Rios, noting that a defendant must show what proffered testimony would be and its likely impact. Furthermore, regarding the discovery issue, the court found Rowe failed to plausibly explain how seeing the alleged missing evidence would have changed the trial's result. The court also noted that Rowe's suggestion that he would have pleaded guilty was unsupported, as there was no plea offer on the table. Finally, the court addressed a second motion to remand alleging ineffective assistance of remand counsel, holding that Rowe forfeited these arguments by failing to address them in his opening brief.
Rowe's conviction and sentence of 97 months' imprisonment and 48 months' supervised release remain in effect. The decision reinforces the high bar for proving prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel claims, requiring defendants to provide specific evidence of what additional witnesses would say and how that testimony would change the outcome. It also serves as a reminder that arguments not raised in an opening brief are forfeited.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download