Florencio Rolan v. Brian V. Coleman

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-4547
_____________
FLORENCIO ROLAN,
Appellant
v.
BRIAN V. COLEMAN; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
______________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 08-cv-5438)
District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller
______________
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
______________
At the direction of the Court the precedential opinion filed on May 17, 2012 is amended
as follows:
At page 20, final paragraph, third and fourth sentences:
These comments were intended to convince the jury that
Vargas’s testimony was unreliable because he did not
immediately come forward. However, Rolan avers that the
comments were misleading because the jury was never told
that this Court had found trial counsel, Goldstein, to be
ineffective for not investigating Vargas as a witness.
According to Vargas Rolan, the Commonwealth should not
have been allowed to comment on Vargas’s failure to testify

-- 1 of 2 --

without attributing the absence to the prior ineffective
assistance of counsel ruling. Vargas Rolan also argues that
the trial court’s failure to provide a sufficient curative
instruction further exacerbated the impact of the prosecutor’s
comments.
At page 22, paragraph continued from page 21:
Vargas’s Rolan’s assertion that our prior ineffective
assistance of counsel finding bears any impact on the second
trial is without merit. We will, however, consider his due
process claim, and determine whether the District Court
properly found there to be no constitutional violation.
For the Court,
Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk
Date: June 7, 2012

-- 2 of 2 --