Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Thomas Eugene Creech, who has been on death row for over four decades for the 1981 murder of fellow inmate David Dale Jensen, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Creech alleged that the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office introduced fabricated or misleading evidence at his clemency hearing. He sought to recuse U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford from presiding over his underlying § 1983 suit, arguing that Judge Brailsford and Ada County Prosecutor Jan Bennetts are close friends, which could affect the judge's impartiality.The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho denied Creech’s motion to preliminarily enjoin his execution, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Creech continued to litigate his § 1983 claim, alleging prosecutorial misconduct. He then moved to disqualify Judge Brailsford, citing her friendship with Bennetts. Judge Brailsford denied the recusal motion, stating that although she and Bennetts were close during their clerkship, they had since lost touch and a reasonable person would not question her impartiality.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Creech’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court found that the longstanding friendship between Judge Brailsford and Bennetts, combined with the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct involving Bennetts, could lead a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality. The court emphasized that public confidence in the judiciary requires that any appearance of bias be addressed promptly. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition for a writ of mandamus and remanded the case for reassignment to a different judge. View "Creech v. United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Boise" on Justia Law

Andy Espinosa pleaded guilty to the malice murder of Zachary Mejia and other related offenses. Espinosa was living with his girlfriend and her four children, including Zachary. On December 8, 2020, Espinosa and Zachary had a physical altercation, which left Espinosa feeling humiliated. The next day, Espinosa searched online about what it feels like to murder someone. Later that day, he returned home, grabbed a knife, and fatally stabbed Zachary. Espinosa called 9-1-1 and was arrested. He later claimed he was overtaken by a "demon" during the stabbing.Espinosa was indicted by a Chattooga County grand jury and pleaded guilty to all counts without a sentencing recommendation from the State. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole for malice murder, a consecutive five-year term for possession of a knife during the commission of a felony, and a concurrent 12-month term for cruelty to children in the third degree. Espinosa filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising him of an insanity defense.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Espinosa claimed his plea counsel was ineffective for not investigating his mental state and advising him of a potential insanity defense. Plea counsel testified that he did not see a viable defense and believed a plea was in Espinosa's best interest. The court found that counsel's performance was not deficient, as his strategic decisions were based on his professional judgment and experience. The court also noted that Espinosa did not provide evidence of past mental health issues or expert testimony supporting an insanity defense.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Espinosa's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court held that Espinosa failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient. View "Espinosa v. State" on Justia Law

Michael Earl Summerville was convicted of felony murder in connection with the death of Martha West. On December 10, 2017, Summerville and West, who were romantic partners, visited their neighbor Johnny Clark. After an argument, Summerville returned to Clark’s home later that night, reporting that West had fallen in a nearby field. West was found deceased in the field, with evidence suggesting she had been struck by a vehicle. Summerville’s truck showed signs of a collision, and fibers consistent with West’s clothing were found on the truck. An autopsy revealed extensive injuries consistent with being struck by a motor vehicle.A Wilkes County grand jury indicted Summerville for malice murder, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, and aggravated assault, family violence. He was found not guilty of malice murder but guilty of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for felony murder, with the aggravated assault charge merging for sentencing purposes. Summerville’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Summerville’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error. Summerville argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a comment in the State’s closing argument and that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a witness. The court held that the prosecutor’s comment during closing arguments was a permissible inference from the evidence, and thus, any objection would have been meritless. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the medical examiner, as Summerville failed to show that the examiner’s prior disciplinary action was probative of potential bias. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Summerville v. State" on Justia Law

In March 2020, the appellant was convicted of malice murder and related charges for the shooting death of Mondavius Milan. The incident occurred on April 3, 2018, in Atlanta, involving a check fraud scheme with the appellant, Milan, and Jaleesia Mathis. On the morning of the shooting, the group, including Mathis's partner Japhar White, was in a car when an argument over missing money escalated. Witnesses testified that the appellant pulled out a gun, and after a struggle, Milan was shot. Both Mathis and White fled the scene, later identifying the appellant as the shooter. The appellant was arrested in Massachusetts and extradited to Georgia.The appellant was indicted by a Fulton County grand jury and found guilty on all counts by a jury. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for malice murder and additional consecutive sentences for firearm charges. The appellant's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing. The appellant then filed a timely notice of appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case, focusing on two main contentions: ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence. The court held that the appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective for advising him not to testify, as the counsel's advice was based on reasonable strategic considerations. The court also found that the evidence, including corroborating testimony from accomplices and other witnesses, was sufficient to support the conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellant's claims lacked merit. View "NABORS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In October 2015, a jury found Dolonte Tedder guilty of malice murder and related crimes connected to the shooting death of Quleon Glass. The incident occurred on September 8, 2014, and Tedder, along with co-indictees Jacquavious Eggleston and Teandria Tabb, was indicted for various offenses. Tedder was tried alone and found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and consecutive terms for other charges. Tedder filed a motion for a new trial, which was partially granted due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was remanded, and after further proceedings, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case following the trial court's denial of Tedder's motion for a new trial. Tedder argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the trial court committed reversible errors, and that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Tedder's convictions for malice murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Yung Fame was a criminal street gang and that Tedder was associated with it.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Tedder's motion for a directed verdict and that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. The court also found no error in the trial court's response to a jury question during deliberations and upheld the exclusion of juror affidavits under Rule 606(b). Finally, the court rejected Tedder's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that his trial counsel's performance was not deficient and that Tedder failed to demonstrate prejudice. View "TEDDER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In May 2020, Daniel Samaniego was charged with gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony. During his trial in May 2021, a detective testified about attempting to interview Samaniego, leading to an objection from Samaniego’s counsel, which was sustained. The jury found Samaniego guilty. Post-trial, a juror indicated that the jury discussed Samaniego’s decision not to testify. Samaniego’s counsel did not move for a new trial based on this potential jury misconduct.Samaniego appealed the criminal judgment in September 2021, arguing insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting the prosecutorial misconduct claim was not preserved for appeal. In May 2023, Samaniego filed for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not preserving the prosecutorial misconduct issue and not moving for a new trial based on jury misconduct. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the application in February 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Samaniego did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different but for his counsel’s alleged errors. The court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the detective’s testimony and noted that the jury’s discussion about Samaniego not testifying did not constitute juror misconduct under the law. The court concluded that Samaniego’s trial counsel’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that Samaniego was not prejudiced by these actions. View "Samaniego v. State" on Justia Law

In September 2019, the appellant was involved in a shooting that resulted in the death of Cameron Johnson. The appellant was romantically involved with Andrea Stanek, who had an on-again, off-again relationship with Johnson. On the night of the incident, after a walk to resolve tensions, the appellant shot Johnson in the chest. The appellant was charged with malice murder, two counts of felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm-related offenses. He pleaded guilty to malice murder in October 2021 and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years. The remaining charges were dismissed.The Glynn County Superior Court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced the appellant accordingly. The appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his counsel failed to inform him about the 30-year parole eligibility requirement. The trial court denied this motion in July 2022, finding no deficiency in counsel’s performance. The appellant's subsequent motion to vacate the order was granted for procedural reasons, allowing him to file a timely appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that the appellant's counsel had adequately informed him about the parole consequences of his plea. The court noted that the trial court was entitled to credit the testimony of the appellant’s counsel over the appellant’s claims. The Supreme Court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient. View "GOODWIN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

A criminal defendant, convicted of aggravated manslaughter and sentenced to thirty years in prison, twice instructed his attorney to file a plenary appeal. However, his intake appellate counsel designated the appeal for the expedited sentence-review track (ESOA). The ESOA panel did not transfer the case to the plenary calendar and affirmed the sentence. The defendant's subsequent post-conviction relief applications in state court, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, were unsuccessful.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the defendant's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which included claims related to the ESOA designation. The court also denied his Rule 60(b) motion, which specifically challenged the intake appellate counsel's decision to place the appeal on the ESOA calendar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Rule 60(b) motion was not a second or successive habeas application because it was filed within 28 days of the underlying judgment. However, the court found that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally defaulted because it was not exhausted in state court and he could not show the requisite prejudice to overcome the default. The court applied the Strickland standard for prejudice, requiring a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel's errors, rather than the Flores-Ortega standard, which applies when the entirety of direct appellate review is rendered unavailable. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition and the Rule 60(b) motion. View "Ross v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison" on Justia Law

Federal agents received a tip about methamphetamine being stored at a house in El Paso, Texas. An informant arranged a controlled buy with Carla Dominguez, who confirmed she had methamphetamine for sale. Dominguez and her husband, Samuel Crittenden, were observed by agents; Crittenden retrieved a bag from the house and handed it to Dominguez, who was later intercepted by police with ten pounds of methamphetamine. Crittenden admitted to storing items at the house and giving a bag to Dominguez, claiming he thought it contained marijuana. Additional drugs were found in the attic of the house.Crittenden and Dominguez were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine and marijuana. The government raised a potential conflict of interest with Crittenden’s attorney, Leonard Morales, who also represented another individual involved in drug activities. The district court held a Garcia hearing, where Crittenden waived his right to conflict-free counsel. The court accepted the waiver, and the trial proceeded. Crittenden was convicted on all counts, but the district court later granted a new trial due to insufficient evidence. The Fifth Circuit reinstated the conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and remanded for sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Crittenden’s appeal, where he argued that the district court erred in accepting his waiver of conflict-free counsel and in denying a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession. The Fifth Circuit found that Crittenden’s waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that the district court did not err in accepting it. The court also held that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated intent to distribute, making a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple possession inappropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Crittenden" on Justia Law

Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Holsum") contracted with Peerless Food Equipment ("Peerless") to manufacture a machine for sandwiching cookies and with Compass Industrial Group, LLC ("Compass") for a tray-loader machine. The machines malfunctioned, leading Holsum to sue both companies for breach of contract and negligence. The jury found in favor of Holsum against Compass but ruled in favor of Peerless. Peerless then sought attorney fees from Holsum, citing a fee-shifting provision in their contract and a Puerto Rico court rule.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied Peerless's motion for attorney fees. The court found that the fee-shifting provision was not clearly incorporated into the contract through a hyperlink and that Holsum did not act obstinately or frivolously in bringing its claims against Peerless. Peerless appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the contract did not clearly communicate the incorporation of the fee-shifting provision via the hyperlink. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that Holsum's claims were not frivolous and that Holsum did not act obstinately in refusing to settle before trial. The appellate court emphasized that exercising the right to a jury trial in good faith does not constitute obstinacy. View "Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. ITW Food Equipment Group LLC" on Justia Law