Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

During 2002 and 2003, a Colorado state public defender with the Mesa County Regional Office represented defendant Thomas West after the victim's mother, D.S., informed police that she discovered West lying in bed next to her six-year-old daughter with his genitals exposed. D.S. and her ex-husband, D.E.S., both testified at trial for the prosecution. Colorado public defenders had represented D.S. approximately 23 times over the eight years preceding West's case. Although West's trial counsel had never himself represented D.S., the Mesa County Office represented her seven times between 1998 and 2001. D.S. was also a client of the El Paso County Regional Office, where she had an open case during West's trial at issue here. In addition, the Mesa County Office represented D.S.'s ex-husband, D.E.S., five times between 1999 and 2002. West's trial counsel had filed an entry of appearance in one of these cases, although the prosecution dismissed that case four days after that entry of appearance. West's trial counsel did not inform West or the trial court about these possible conflicts of interest. There was no record regarding the conflict at trial. The jury convicted West of sexual assault on a child. Following his trial, West filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion, alleging that his trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest. The trial court found no conflict and denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that an actual conflict of interest arose from the public defender's dual role as prior and current counsel for D.S. and as prior counsel for D.E.S. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on the analytical framework a trial court should use to resolve a criminal defendant's post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged conflicts of interest arising from concurrent or successive representation of witnesses against the defendant. The Court shared petitioners' contention that, under "Colorado v. Castro," (657 P.2d 932 (Colo. 1983)), they should not be required to demonstrate a separate "adverse effect" in addition to a conflict of interest in order to receive new trials. In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim predicated on trial counsel's alleged conflict of interest arising from concurrent or successive representation of trial witnesses against a defendant, the Court held that a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence both a conflict of interest and an adverse effect resulting from that conflict. View "West v. People" on Justia Law

In 1999, Christeson was convicted of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed Christeson’s conviction and sentence and denial of his post-conviction motion for relief. Under the one-year limitations period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U. S. C. 244(d)(1), Christeson’s federal habeas petition was due on April 10, 2005. Nine months before that deadline, the court appointed attorneys Horwitz and Butts to represent Christeson, 18 U. S. C. 599(a)(2). The attorneys subsequently acknowledged that they failed to meet with Christeson until six weeks after his petition was due. There is no evidence that they communicated with him at all. They finally filed the petition 117 days late. The district court dismissed; the Eighth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Christeson, who has severe cognitive disabilities, relied entirely on his attorneys, and may not have known of the dismissal. About seven years later, the attorneys contacted attorneys Merrigan and Perkovich to discuss Christeson’s case. Christeson’s only hope for merits review was to move under FRCP60(b) to reopen final judgment on the ground that AEDPA’s statute of limitations should have been equitably tolled. Horwitz and Butts would not file that motion, premised on their own malfeasance. In 2014, Merrigan and Perkovich unsuccessfully moved to substitute counsel. The Eighth Circuit dismissed, reasoning that they were not authorized to file on Christeson’s behalf. The Missouri Supreme Court set an October 29, 2014 execution date. The district court denied a second motion as untimely, stating that Horwitz and Butts had not “abandoned” Christeson, and reasoning that allowing the motion would permit “‘abusive’” delays in capital cases. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court stayed execution and reversed, stating that the denials contravened its 2012 decision, Martel v. Clair, concerning the “interests of justice” standard, and noting the obvious conflict of interest with respect to the original attorneys. View "Christeson v. Roper" on Justia Law

In 2009 defendant was sentenced to 24 months in prison, with 3 years of supervised release, as a felon in possession of a gun. After his 2011 release, he violated probation and was sentenced to five months in prison plus 30 months more of supervised release. After subsequent violations, the judge ordered 45 days of home confinement with electronic monitoring and enrollment in a mental health treatment program. In 2013, the probation officer advised the judge that defendant had committed five traffic offenses in one day. The judge revoked supervised release, imposing a five-month sentence of imprisonment with two more years of supervised release. He was released; his probation officer advised the court that defendant had again violated. Although the recommended range was 5 to 11 months, the government asked for 15 months. Counsel noted that defendant had young children and that prior employers would rehire him. The judge sentenced him to 15 months with no more supervised release. After supplemental briefing, the Seventh Circuit vacated, after learning that the prosecutor in an earlier matter involving the defendant became the judge who sentenced him. The possibility that a conscious or unconscious recollection influenced the sentence cannot be excluded. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2006 Bey was convicted for making false statements in a bankruptcy proceeding and received a below-guidelines sentence of three months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed her conviction found that the sentence was too low and remanded for resentencing. After remand by the Supreme Court, the district court resentenced Bey to 24 months in prison and ordered her to self-surrender. After the second extension, Bey’s lawyer, Anderson, mailed her a letter enclosing the court’s order resetting her surrender date to December 2008. When Bey did not surrender, an arrest warrant was issued. After a year, she was arrested and charged with knowingly failing to surrender to serve her sentence, 18 U.S.C. 3146(a)(2). Bey moved to dismiss her indictment and to suppress evidence that attorney Anderson notified her of the self-surrender date because, she asserted, it was a privileged communication. The district court denied the motion. At trial Bey objected to testimony from Anderson about any conversations they had and to the admission of his letter to Bey. The judged redacted part of the letter, admitting three sentences from it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A lawyer’s communication of the defendant’s surrender date is not a privileged communication. View "United States v. Bey" on Justia Law

Holt threw eggs on the Katheiser driveway to frighten Kartheiser and his 6 year old daughter. Represented by counsel, she entered a negotiated guilty plea to resisting a peace officer. The other charge was nol-prossed. She was sentenced to 12 months of probation and was ordered to provide documentation of treatment. The court admonished Holt that the agreement involved a “conviction.” Days later, she filed a pro se motion to vacate, stating that she “was told there would be no conviction” and “never had the chance to testify.” Her counsel was allowed to withdraw. The circuit court granted the motion to withdraw the plea and appointed the public defender. The next day, Holt filed a pro se “Petition to Quash … the police report,” claiming tampering with the record, police brutality, and that her children were missing. After several more incidents, Holt was placed in a mental health center. She filed notice of appeal and a “Demand Letter for Formal Correction,” seeking to “hold Tim Brown accountable for ‘Bearing FALSE Witness’ the 8th Great Commandment and for Defamation.” The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that Holt had been found fit to stand trial during the pendency of the appeal so that whether she received effective assistance of counsel during proceedings below was moot. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, stating that public interest exception applies to warrant review. Where the evidence clearly indicates that defendant is unfit to stand trial, but a defendant contends that he is fit, counsel is not obligated to argue for a finding of fitness. In doing so, counsel would be violating his duty to the client and suborning a violation of due process. View "People v. Holt" on Justia Law

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board (collectively, the ODC) issued an informal advisory opinion that determined (1) the Attorney General did not have authority to prosecute criminal cases outside of the limited prosecutorial authority granted by W. Va. Code 5-3-2, and (2) the Rules of Professional Conduct would be violated if the Attorney General prosecuted assisted county prosecutors in certain criminal prosecutions. The Attorney General subsequently filed the instant petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent ODC from enforcing the informal advisory opinion, contending that county prosecutors have authority to request the Attorney General to assist with criminal prosecutions and that the office of the Attorney General has independent common law authority to prosecute criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) county prosecutors do not have statutory authority to appoint the Attorney General as a special prosecutor; and (2) under the state Constitution and statutory law, the common law criminal prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General was abolished. View "State ex rel. Morrisey v. W. Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel" on Justia Law

During the trial of State v. Deedy and on the fifth day of jury deliberations, the circuit court conducted five separate court proceedings that were not open to the public. The transcripts from the court sessions were subsequently sealed, and a mistrial was declared as a result of a deadlocked jury. Petitioners, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now, filed petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus seeking to prohibit the circuit court from sealing any portion of the trial transcript and to prohibit the court from closing the courtroom in a similar manner in a re-trial of State v. Deedy and in any other criminal proceeding. On remand, the circuit court unsealed the transcript. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed the writ of prohibition as moot because the circuit court already unsealed the transcript of the closed proceedings; (2) denied the writ of mandamus as unnecessary in light of the directive of this opinion; and (3) adopted procedures that a court is required to follow before denying public access to a transcript of a closed proceeding.View "Oahu Publ’ns, Inc. v. Hon. Karen Ahn" on Justia Law

Warden Gregory McLaughlin appealed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus to William Payne. In 2006, Payne was convicted on two counts of aggravated child molestation, three counts of child molestation, and one count of cruelty to children. At trial, then District Attorney for Douglas County, David McDade, appeared as a witness for the State. He identified himself to the jury as the district attorney, identified the examining prosecuting attorney as his assistant, and outlined his duties as district attorney. He also testified that his daughter was a classmate of the victim named in the indictment; his daughter told him what she had heard of the crimes; he participated in an interview of Payne early in the investigation; during the first few days of the investigation, law enforcement efforts were focused on finding Payne; and, that after his interview, he realized he would likely be a witness at trial, and removed himself from Payne's prosecution. Payne appealed, but his convictions were affirmed. In 2009, Payne filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising, inter alia, a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The habeas court found that McDade had a conflict of interest, had testified falsely at trial, and that appellate counsel should have pursued these two issues on appeal. The habeas court also found that had the issues been raised on appeal, the result of Payne's direct appeal would have been different. The court granted the writ of habeas corpus. The warden argued that the habeas court erred in finding that the representation by Payne's appellate counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the assistant district attorney who acted at trial did so under the authority vested in McDade as the elected district attorney. McDade's disqualifying personal conflict of interest removed that authority, and he was not replaced as provided for by statute. View "McLaughlin v. Payne" on Justia Law

The appellate counsel of Defendant, a prisoner under a sentence of death, requested that the Supreme Court depart from its established procedure for requiring counsel to proceed with diligent appellate advocacy during mandatory review in death penalty cases where the defendant expresses a desire to be executed. Defendant in this case wished to argue in favor of the death sentence. Under Rule 4-1.2(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, a lawyer is required to abide by her client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation. Appellate counsel sought an order permitting him to withdraw from representation to avoid an alleged violation of his ethical responsibility to his client. The Supreme Court denied current counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that there was no ethical violation in requiring counsel to continue to prosecute this appeal for the benefit of the Court in meeting its statutory and constitutional duties.View "Robertson v. State" on Justia Law

On February 14, 2013, the Attorney General received an ethics complaint, alleging possible violations of the Ethics Act by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Robert W. Harrell, Jr. The complaint was originally submitted by a private citizen to the House Legislative Ethics Committee. That same day, the Attorney General forwarded the complaint to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), and SLED carried out a 10-month criminal investigation into the matter. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Chief of SLED and the Attorney General petitioned the presiding judge of the state grand jury to impanel the state grand jury on January 13, 2014. Acting presiding judge of the state grand jury, the Honorable L. Casey Manning, subsequently impaneled the state grand jury. On February 24, 2014, the Speaker filed a motion to disqualify the Attorney General from participating in the grand jury investigation. On March 21, 2014, a hearing was held on the motion after which the court sua sponte raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Another hearing was held, and the court found, as presiding judge of the state grand jury, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear any matter arising from the Ethics Act, and refused to reach the issue of disqualification. The court discharged the grand jury and ordered the Attorney General to cease his criminal investigation. The Attorney General appealed that order to the Supreme Court. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court erred in concluding that the House Ethics Committee had exclusive jurisdiction over the original complaint. While the crime of public corruption could include violations of the Ethics Act, the state grand jury's jurisdiction is confined to the purposes set forth in the constitution and the state grand jury statute, as circumscribed by the impaneling order. While the Court reversed the circuit court's order, it "in no way suggest[ed] that it was error for the presiding judge to inquire whether the state grand jury was 'conducting investigative activity within its jurisdiction or proper investigative activity.'" The case was remanded for a decision on whether the Attorney General should have been disqualified from participating in the state grand jury proceedings. View "Harrell v. Attorney General of South Carolina" on Justia Law