SCOTUS Case: Martel vs. Clair - Ian McClendon
Review of Case: This Supreme Court Case Michael Martel vs. Kenneth Clair is presented the question of whether a condemned prisoner of capital federal habeas corpus can change his court appointed counsel because he was dissatisfied with his first counsels investigations. But the replacement for a new counsel if protected by habeas corpus should expresses dissatisfactory but also should be in the "interest of justice."
Facts of the Case: In Kenneth Clairs defense being under protection of a federal habeas corpus for 10 years should not influence the decision to be able to be appointed a new court counsel since Kenneth was dissatisfied with his previous counsel. During the state court case the judge expressed that the counsel was doing a proper job for his client but it was not said that Clair was entitled to a new counsel. Clair filed for a petition of his federal habeas corpus and for a new counsel. The judge denied his request and then the day after he retired. Right after Clair talked to his counsel and came to a legit conclusion that the "attorney-client relationship had broken" and a appeal for a new counsel would be appropriate. So with the approval of a new counsel, Clair tried for a habeas corpus petition and the substitution for the new counsel before the district court was even ready for ruling.
In Michael Martel argument he expresses that after the decision made by the Ninth District Court Clair was distort about the verdict and shortly after he explained that he wasn't content with his counsel and wanted a new counsel. The districts court response was that "no conflict of interest or inadequacy of counsel is shown". So therefor they denied the petition for release of federal habeas corpus. Clair appealed and was appointed a new lawyer to revise his statement to expressing "dissatisfaction" which calls for no further dispute of getting a new counsel for that would be unconstitutional. The Amendment that is controversial is the 6th which states, "In all criminal prosecutions, ... and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Summary of Arguments Before Case: When Clair was appointed his new counsel he also independently hired a private investigator in August 2005, C.J. Ford, whom took over the case. In March 2005, Clair sent a letter to the District Court saying that he did not want to be represented by a Federal Public Defender, stating that his old counsel, "displayed a degree of messiness." Also that the counsel was trying to save his life rather than trying to prove his innocence and get him out of prison. The State's retaliation to the letter was Clair had "shown no cause to dismiss counsel"and that "Clair had meet with the Federal Public Defender and he agreed that the counsel should continue to represent him but still have the right to take action later. To clarify Clair's argument he summed it all up in a second letter. He asked for his counsel to be renewed and an addition of a complaint. During C.J. Ford's inspection recovered new evidence from the original crime scene and was unable to locate a witness which both of which Clair complains his normal counsel did not look hard enough for. But the key factor here is that back in 1984 at the time of the Linda Rogers murder the detectives didn't have nearly enough technology that would've helped find crucial evidence for the case in favor of Kenneth Clair. When the Petitioner and counsel asked to review the recovered evidence the police department claimed that the evidence was lost or destroyed but in May 2005 Ford dug deeper into the problem and recovered the evidence. With further analysis it was determined that no biological evidence of Kenneth Clair was found at the scene of the crime. Although was sparked more controversy was that much of this investigation was done independently and not mentioned to the district court, counsel, or lawyer. A few months later the case was retired of habeas corpus and reassigned with repeating claims of being dissatisfied with his old counsel and that the evidence should be used in trial supporting Clair. Many stipulations occur again and again with appeals and request of relief of habeas corpus and improper use of collecting evidence.
Outcome of Case: From listening and reading the transcript I believe that the Court would favor for Clair. Because at the beginning of the issue the Federal Public Defense did not conduct their litigations properly to justify Clair in the first place. The denial of Clairs appointment to new counsel was unconstitutional and there shouldn't have been such friction of Clairs request but for his innocence of connecting him to the murder of Linda Rogers. In the end the degree of messiness overturned the case in favor of Clair.
Comments
No comments have been posted yet.
Log in to post a comment.