As mentioned earlier today, there were two COA grants from the Second Circuit in July. One of the grants is in a case out of Connecticut. First time in a long time I have seen one of those. One other oddity: the district court decisions in both cases were issued on the same day. That's a really odd coincidence.
Hawthorne v. Spitzer, 10-4324-pr
- Lower Ct. Info: 07-cv-4128, 2010 WL 3803861 (EDNY Sept. 21, 2010) (NG) (CLP)
- Issues: (1) whether Appellant has established prejudice for the procedural default of his claim that his Miranda rights were violated; and (2) whether counsel was ineffective during the suppression hearing when his counsel failed to cross-examine detectives about appellant's interrogation and did not call appellant to testify at the hearing
Notes: What's notable about the COA is that the court goes into some factual detail as to the basis for the IAC claim. It states:
With respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the record indicates that Appellant submitted a “pro se supplemental motion to suppress his November 13, 2000 statements,” and his newly assigned counsel, Stephen Singer, Esq., submitted an affirmation to the state court stating that he had met with Appellant’s prior counsel, who had offered no “legitimate difference of opinion” or “alternative legal strategy” to explain his failure to cross-examine the Detectives as described above, or preserve issues for review. In addition, [the detectives'] and Appellant’s testimony at trial revealed new facts, not elicited at the Huntley hearing, respecting Appellant’s November 13, 2000 interrogation. These facts call into question whether counsel’s representation at the Huntley hearing was objectively reasonable and did not prejudice Appellant so as to deprive him of a fair trial. . . . The Clerk’s Office shall appoint counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act.
Clearly, the court is sending a signal to appointed counsel to pay attention to these facts. It's a bit unusual for the court to do that.
Jones v. Murphy, 10-3997-pr
- Lower Ct. Info: 10-CV-49, 2010 WL 3829129 (D. Conn. Sept. 21, 2010) (JCH)
- Issues: (1) whether, before removing the Appellant from the courtroom, the trial court should have warned the Appellant that he would be removed if he continued his disruptive behavior; (2) whether the Appellant “reclaimed” his right to be present at trial; (3) whether the Appellant was interrogated within the meaning of Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) and, (4) if so, whether his subsequent, post-Miranda statements are admissible consistent with Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), and Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).
Comments