Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Jonathon Neuhard was convicted by a jury of producing, receiving, and possessing child pornography. The evidence included testimony from his niece, MV1, who identified herself in the images and stated that Neuhard had taken them. Law enforcement found the images on a laptop and memory card in Neuhard's trailer, with metadata linking the images to his phone. Neuhard sought to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Neuhard's motion but granted a certificate of appealability. Neuhard argued that his trial counsel, Richard Korn, failed to adequately investigate and present evidence of his autism and did not request an evidentiary hearing regarding a government witness's mention of polygraph tests. He also contended that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not appealing the denial of his mistrial motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Korn had conducted a reasonable investigation into Neuhard's autism and made a strategic decision not to present this evidence at trial, fearing it would harm Neuhard's case. The court also determined that Neuhard did not suffer prejudice from Korn's failure to request an evidentiary hearing about the polygraph testimony, as the district court had issued a clear and immediate instruction to the jury to disregard the comment.Regarding appellate counsel, the court held that the decision not to appeal the mistrial denial was within the bounds of reasonable professional judgment. The court noted that appellate counsel had raised six other issues on appeal, and the mistrial claim was not clearly stronger than the issues presented.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Neuhard's § 2255 motion. View "Neuhard v. U.S." on Justia Law

In 2004, Jason Mashaney was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child, involving his then-five-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to 442 months in prison. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. In 2008, Mashaney filed a motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, which led to a reversal and remand for a full evidentiary hearing. The district court found substantial prejudice from ineffective representation, vacated the 2004 convictions, and scheduled a new trial. Subsequently, Mashaney entered an Alford plea to amended charges of attempted aggravated battery and aggravated endangerment of a child, resulting in a 72-month sentence and his release for time served.The Sedgwick District Court awarded Mashaney nearly $414,595 in damages for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004. The court concluded that the original charges were "effectively dismissed" when the State amended them to nonsexual charges involving the same victim. The district court found that Mashaney met the statutory elements for compensation, including that his judgment of conviction was vacated and the charges were dismissed. The court calculated the damages based on the duration of wrongful imprisonment and reduced the award by the amount received from a legal malpractice settlement.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "the charges were dismissed" in K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(B) means both terminating the criminal accusation and relieving the defendant of criminal liability. The court found that the original charges against Mashaney were not dismissed but amended, and he incurred criminal liability for the amended charges. Therefore, Mashaney did not meet the statutory requirement that the charges were dismissed, and his claim for wrongful conviction and imprisonment failed. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Mashaney" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to sell and possession of cocaine after police recovered drugs and paraphernalia during a search of an apartment where he and others were arrested. Defense counsel sought to suppress the seized items, arguing the warrant was inaccurate and unreliable but did not claim the warrant was executed without notice, violating CPL 690.50 (1). Defendant argued on appeal that this omission constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the case and rejected the ineffective assistance claim, noting that the record did not conclusively show a knock-and-announce violation. The court found that the defendant's argument was speculative and unsupported by the record, which was silent on whether the officers announced themselves before entry. The Appellate Division concluded that the defendant failed to establish a no-knock violation.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that defense counsel's failure to raise the knock-and-announce issue did not constitute ineffective assistance because the argument was not so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense attorney would have failed to assert it. The court noted that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan, which held that a knock-and-announce violation does not require the exclusion of evidence, had not been contradicted by any New York appellate decision. Therefore, the issue was not sufficiently clear to mandate its assertion by defense counsel. The court also found that the defendant's legal sufficiency contention was unpreserved for appellate review and upheld the trial court's admission of evidence regarding an uncharged drug sale. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Hayward" on Justia Law

Louis Mercado was charged with three counts of capital sexual battery in Florida. During his trial, the court granted judgments of acquittal on two counts and declared a mistrial on the third count due to prosecutorial error. The trial court then barred a retrial, citing the Double Jeopardy Clause. The State appealed this decision, but Mercado's attorney, mistakenly believing he had withdrawn from the case, failed to file a response brief. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, leading to Mercado's retrial, conviction, and life sentence.The Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily denied Mercado's state habeas petition, in which he argued ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to file a response brief. Mercado contended that this failure should be presumed prejudicial under United States v. Cronic, rather than requiring proof of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The appellate court's decision was based on the reasoning that the failure to file a brief did not constitute a complete denial of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Mercado's federal habeas petition. The court held that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has never applied the Cronic presumption of prejudice to a situation where counsel failed to file an appellee's brief. Therefore, the state court's requirement for Mercado to prove actual prejudice under Strickland was deemed reasonable. View "Mercado v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

In 2010, the defendant was prosecuted for multiple counts of attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and other charges. He pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder and admitted to several enhancements, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence. In 2022, he filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the trial court found made a prima facie case for an evidentiary hearing. The defendant then sought discovery of peace officer personnel records, which the trial court partially granted after an in-camera review.The Monterey County Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition. The defendant appealed, requesting the appellate court to review the trial court's application of Pitchess standards to the discovery motion. The appellate court requested supplemental briefing on whether the trial court's review should also encompass Brady principles, which require the disclosure of exculpatory evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, determined that a petitioner may obtain disclosure of peace officer personnel information under Brady principles through Pitchess procedures in advance of a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing. The court found that the trial court did not clearly consider Brady principles when ruling on the discovery motion. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally reversed the trial court's order denying the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings to ensure compliance with Brady requirements. If the trial court finds additional discoverable information, it must allow the defendant to demonstrate prejudice and potentially order a new evidentiary hearing. View "People v. Nuno" 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