Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Steven M. Hohn, the defendant, was convicted of multiple drug and firearm charges. While awaiting trial, he was detained at CoreCivic, where the Kansas U.S. Attorney’s Office (Kansas USAO) obtained and listened to his attorney-client phone calls. Hohn later discovered this and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his judgment or reduce his sentence, arguing that the government’s intrusion violated his Sixth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Hohn’s § 2255 petition. The court found that Hohn did not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his attorney-client call because he knew the call would be recorded and did not follow the proper steps to privatize it. The court also concluded that Hohn waived the attorney-client privilege by making the call despite knowing it would be recorded. Consequently, the court did not reach a direct Sixth Amendment analysis, as it determined that the privilege was a necessary underpinning of Hohn’s Sixth Amendment right.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court overruled its precedent in Shillinger v. Haworth, which had established a structural-error rule presuming prejudice when the government intentionally intrudes into the attorney-client relationship without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. The Tenth Circuit held that a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to confidential communication with an attorney requires the defendant to show prejudice. Since Hohn conceded that he suffered no prejudice from the prosecution’s obtaining and listening to his six-minute call with his attorney, his claim failed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying Hohn’s § 2255 petition. View "United States v. Hohn" on Justia Law

Patricia Burnette Chastain was appointed as the clerk of superior court in Franklin County in May 2013 and was subsequently elected to the position in November 2013 and reelected in 2017. In July 2020, an attorney named Jeffrey Thompson filed an affidavit requesting an inquiry into Ms. Chastain's conduct, alleging various instances of misconduct, including distributing gift certificates to jurors, allowing a judicial candidate to address a jury, and acting unprofessionally with correctional officers, among other allegations.Judge John M. Dunlow initially suspended Ms. Chastain and set a hearing date. However, due to a conflict of interest, Judge Dunlow and another judge were recused, and Judge Thomas H. Lock was appointed to preside over the removal inquiry. After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Lock issued an order in October 2020 permanently removing Ms. Chastain from her position based on findings of willful misconduct. Ms. Chastain appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that Judge Lock lacked authority under Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution to remove her and remanded the case for reconsideration under Article VI.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that Judge Lock had the authority to preside over the removal proceeding as a replacement for the recused senior regular resident superior court judge. The court also held that procedural due process requires that removal be based only on conduct identified in the initiating affidavit. Furthermore, the court clarified that the standard for removal under Article IV is "misconduct," not "willful misconduct." The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for reconsideration of removal under the proper standards. The court also noted that discretionary review was improvidently allowed regarding the procedure for disqualification under Article VI. View "In re Chastain" on Justia Law

Two Connecticut attorneys, Mario Cerame and Timothy Moynahan, challenged Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(7), which prohibits harassment or discrimination by lawyers based on fifteen protected categories. They argued that the rule violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and being unconstitutionally vague. They claimed that the rule's broad language could potentially sanction their speech on controversial topics, thus chilling their First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed their complaint, ruling that Cerame and Moynahan lacked standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. The court found that they did not demonstrate a "real and imminent fear" of enforcement under Rule 8.4(7) and that their allegations were too general to establish a credible threat of enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Cerame and Moynahan have standing to seek pre-enforcement relief. The court held that they had sufficiently alleged an intention to engage in conduct arguably proscribed by Rule 8.4(7) and faced a credible threat of enforcement. The court noted that the rule's broad language and the lack of clear guidelines for enforcement created a substantial risk of disciplinary action, which was sufficient to establish an injury in fact. Consequently, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider whether the Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiffs' claims. View "Cerame v. Slack" on Justia Law

Willie Slocum, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion to correct, vacate, or set aside his convictions and sentences based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Slocum was indicted on two counts of drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, but argued that the two charged conspiracies were actually one. He claimed that he was punished twice for the same conspiracy in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise a double jeopardy challenge before the trial court. The district court denied his motion without ordering a response from the government or holding an evidentiary hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the district court erred in its decision. The appellate court determined that Slocum was indeed punished twice for a single conspiracy in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, the court noted that it was unclear whether trial counsel had a strategic reason for failing to raise a double jeopardy challenge. The court concluded that Slocum was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) where the performance of his trial counsel could be assessed. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s denial of Slocum’s § 2255 motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Slocum’s ineffective assistance claim. View "United States v. Slocum" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a protective order issued by the district court, barring Visser and Associates, PLLC (“Visser”) from communicating with potential class members in a putative class action. The case originated from a claim by Wayside Church that Van Buren County had violated the federal Constitution’s Takings Clause by foreclosing on its property to satisfy a tax debt and then selling the property for a higher amount without refunding the difference. The case was revived in federal court following the Supreme Court's overruling of a previous decision that required such claims to be pursued in state court.The district court preliminarily approved a proposed class action settlement between the plaintiffs and defendant counties. Around the same time, Visser began sending solicitation letters to property owners who it thought might have takings claims against counties in the Western District of Michigan. The district court issued a show-cause order, finding that Visser’s solicitation letters did not cross the line from permissible solicitation to misleading, improper communication with potential class members. However, the court was not satisfied with Visser’s explanation for why it had sent solicitation letters to named plaintiffs who were already represented by class counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's protective order. The court found that Visser had violated ethical rules by soliciting named plaintiffs and misleading the court. The court also found that Visser had continued to solicit potential class members after the district court had preliminarily approved the class settlement. The court concluded that Visser's conduct posed a serious threat to the fairness of the litigation process and the administration of justice generally. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective order. View "Wayside Church v. Van Buren County" on Justia Law

The case involves Rudolph Amador, who was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and one count of child abuse. The charges stemmed from allegations that Amador sexually abused his friend's eleven-year-old daughter. After the initial trial, the district court ordered a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court denied Amador's argument that the retrial was barred. Amador was retried and convicted on all three counts.Amador appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the retrial was barred by double jeopardy and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals rejected Amador's arguments and affirmed his convictions. Amador then petitioned for a writ of certiorari on both issues to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Amador's second trial was barred by double jeopardy under Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution. The court found that the prosecutor's misconduct, which included misrepresenting Amador's conditional discharge as a felony conviction and repeatedly referring to Amador as a pedophile during closing arguments, demonstrated a willful disregard of the resulting mistrial. The court remanded the case to the district court to vacate Amador's convictions and discharge him from any further prosecution in this matter. View "State v. Amador" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Viktoriya Usachenok, an employee of the Department of Treasury, who filed an internal complaint alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment created by her supervisor. As part of the investigation, Usachenok was directed not to discuss the investigation with others, a directive she was accused of violating when she consulted her husband, an attorney, about a document related to the investigation. Usachenok subsequently filed a complaint challenging the confidentiality directive.The Appellate Division rejected Usachenok’s constitutional challenge to the regulation, focusing on the change from a directive to a permissive “request” through an amendment. The court found that the plain language of the regulation did not restrict speech and did not constitute an improper prior restraint of speech.The Supreme Court of New Jersey, however, disagreed with the Appellate Division. The court held that the regulation, which requires state investigators to request that anyone interviewed not discuss any aspect of the investigation with others, is overbroad under the State Constitution. The court found that the regulation chills constitutionally protected speech, as it encompasses a significant amount of protected speech and its consequences are real. The court therefore struck the relevant part of the regulation, reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Usachenok v. State of New Jersey Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Solomon Bolen was convicted of multiple offenses, including attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. Bolen appealed, arguing that the district court violated his due process rights by not instructing the jury on his plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency (NGMI). He also claimed that his attorneys were ineffective for not seeking those instructions. Additionally, Bolen contended that his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery violated his right against double jeopardy.The district court had found Bolen mentally fit to proceed with the trial. Despite Bolen's NGMI plea, the court-designated examiner, Dr. Wilkinson, opined that Bolen did not meet the statutory criteria for an NGMI defense. She noted that Bolen's altered state of mind and psychosis at the time of the crimes were caused by self-induced intoxication, which is specifically excluded from the statutory definition of mental illness or deficiency. Bolen's attorneys did not pursue the NGMI defense and focused instead on the self-induced intoxication defense.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Bolen did not present competent evidence to support an NGMI defense, and thus was not entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense. The court also found that Bolen's attorneys were not ineffective for not pursuing the NGMI defense, as the instructions would not have been proper even if they had renewed their request for them. Lastly, the court held that Bolen's convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery did not violate his right against double jeopardy, as the crimes contained separate elements. View "Bolen v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Jacob Lickers, who was convicted for transporting and possessing child pornography. The conviction was based on evidence found on Lickers' devices, which were seized during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest for drug possession. The initial search of the devices was authorized by a state court warrant, which later suppressed the evidence due to the unconstitutionality of the initial stop and arrest. However, the case was referred to federal authorities who conducted a second search of the devices under a federal warrant. The federal warrant application did not mention the state court's suppression ruling.In the lower courts, Lickers' attorney challenged the constitutionality of the initial stop and arrest, and the adequacy of the state search warrant. The state court agreed, suppressing all evidence seized during the stop and any statements made by Lickers. The state charges were subsequently dismissed. However, in the federal court, the same arguments were unsuccessful. Lickers pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 132 months' imprisonment on each count.In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, Lickers argued that his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue that the federal agent acted in bad faith by omitting the state court's suppression ruling from the federal warrant application. The court disagreed, finding that the link between the state court's suppression ruling and the federal warrant application was too attenuated to obligate the attorneys to explore the possibility of bad faith. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief. View "Lickers v. United States" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a federal habeas corpus petition by Raymond Anthony Lewis, who was sentenced to death in 1991 after a California jury convicted him of the first-degree murder of Sandra Simms. Lewis argued that the state trial court's admission of his juvenile confession to a prior murder was unconstitutional and that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence of his innocence of the prior murder. The court concluded that the California Supreme Court's affirmance of the trial court's admission of Lewis's juvenile confession was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law and that Lewis's trial counsel’s litigation of the evidence of the prior murder did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.Lewis also contended that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to investigate, develop, and present certain mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of the trial. The court found that Lewis failed to show that his trial counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard. His counsel made reasonable strategic decisions to ask for the jury’s mercy and to appeal to any lingering doubt the jurors may have had about Lewis’s guilt. The court also concluded that much of the evidence Lewis argued his trial counsel was ineffective in not introducing would have been cumulative of evidence his counsel did introduce.Lewis also raised uncertified claims on appeal, but the court denied a certificate of appealability on these claims. View "LEWIS V. ANDES" on Justia Law