Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Silva argues that Mr. Schippers'
representation was ineffective because Mr. Schippers used his position to
"curry favor with prosecutors," eventually leading to his appointment as
Special Investigative Counsel. (Habeas Pet. at 15).
Mr. Schippers responds that Mr. Silva's appeal to the Seventh Circuit
was decided in August 1997, while his appointment as Special
Investigative Counsel was first suggested in January 1998. Mr. Schippers
was not working as Special Investigative Counsel at any time while he was
representing Mr. Silva, and Mr. Silva has not pointed to facts in support
of his claim that the appointment was made to award Mr. Schippers for
ineffective representation of Mr. Silva, in particular, for covering up
statute of limitations abuses. Therefore Mr. Silva is not entitled to a
hearing on this claim.
In his habeas petition, Mr. Silva alleges that Mr. Schippers "coerced
[him] to take a plea." (Habeas Pet. at 35). When Mr. Silva pled guilty he
acknowledged that his plea was voluntary and not the result of promises,
force, or threats, and that the sentencing decision rested with the
court. (Tr. Jan. 30, 1996 at 19-20). Statements made at a plea hearing
are presumed to be true, "a presumption overcome only if defendant
satisfies a `heavy burden of persuasion.'" United States v. Malave,
22 F.3d 145, 148 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Ellison,
835 F.2d 687, 693 (7th Cir. 1987)). Mr. Silva has not alleged any basis
for his claim that his plea was coerced, and his request for a hearing on
the issue is accordingly denied.
E. Meeting with Agents and Appearing Before the Grand Jury
Mr. Silva next argues that Mr. Schippers forced him to meet with
government agents and to appear before grand juries. Because Mr. Silva
has pointed to no evidence in support of this claim, and because the
record indicates only that Mr. Silva's appearances were voluntary, Mr.
Silva is not entitled to a hearing on whether Mr. Schippers' assistance
was ineffective with respect to this issue.
F. Failure to Investigate
Mr. Silva further argues that Mr. Schippers failed to investigate the
case properly. In Hill, the Supreme Court set forth the standard for
assessing a failure to investigate claim in the context of alleged
ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a guilty plea:
[W]here the alleged error of counsel is a failure to
investigate or discover potentially exculpatory
evidence, the determination whether the error
`prejudiced' the defendant by causing him to plead
guilty rather than to go to trial will depend on the
likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have
led counsel to change his recommendation as to the
plea. This assessment, in turn, will depend in large
part on a prediction whether the evidence likely would
have changed the outcome of a trial. Hill, 474 U.S. at
59, 106 S.Ct. 366.
In addition to showing such prejudice, of course, Mr. Silva also must
show that Mr. Schippers' "representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052.