"The omission of a guilt-phase claim based upon the Ephrata murder allegations -- by both state and federal habeas counsel -- is understandable given the fact that, at most, the evidence before the jury demonstrated that Teleguz was present when another individual threatened to murder someone at the Ephrata Recreation Center, and a murder did occur in the following week. At no point was it alleged that Teleguz was responsible for another murder. It was otherwise clear to the jury that Teleguz kept disreputable company, and that he accompanied an individual who would make such a threat would likely come as no surprise. Given Gilkes' and Hetrick's testimony tying Teleguz to the Russian Mafia, the introduction of Teleguz's federal gun-trafficking convictions, and his obvious associations with convicted criminals, the actual content of Gilkes' testimony concerning the Ephrata Recreation Center was minimally prejudicial.
"While the introduction of the alleged murder certainly did not aid the petitioner, it is not so prejudicial that the outcome of the trial or the sentence would have been different. The allegations do not bear on the murder-for-hire scheme itself and their single mention in the penalty phase was in conjunction with other evidence in support of a finding of future dangerousness. In addition, the jury found that the Commonwealth had demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt an alternative aggravating factor, vileness, in their recommendation of a sentence of death. (J.A. at 3532.)
"Furthermore, trial counsel's failure to investigate the allegations was not unreasonable, given that Gilkes never accused Teleguz of actually committing an uncharged murder, and even more, any investigation would likely have been unhelpful to the petitioner's defense. Although it has been established that a murder as described by Gilkes did not occur, there are multiple statements that reveal contemporaneous rumors that Teleguz had supplied a gun used in the Belyy murder. Indeed, in his second affidavit, Gilkes did not admit that he had fabricated the allegations but that "Gene Popov told [him] that Teleguz was involved in the rec center shooting." (Pet'r's Ex. 34 - 8.)
Readers who believe that the facts prove the innocence of Ivan Teleguz would be better served by reading the opinion of Judge Jones, which provides many more facts and thoughtful analysis:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140718C25/Teleguz%20v.%20Davis
TELEGUZ v. DAVIS
Case No. 7:10CV00254.
IVAN TELEGUZ, Petitioner, v. KEITH W. DAVIS, WARDEN, SUSSEX I STATE PRISON, Respondent.
United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.
July 17, 2014.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
