CJLF Cases Decided

The following is a list of the most recent cases decided in which CJLF participated.

Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-820
United States Supreme Court
Decision date: 2/23/2013
Win

Chaidez v. United States: U.S. Supreme Court case involving the use of a new rule to overturn convictions entered years ago. Roselva Chaidez was convicted of fraud for her part in an insurance scam, claiming injuries in an accident that never happened. Immigration law requires aliens who commit frauds over $10,000 to be deported. Several years later, she falsely claimed on a naturalization petition that she had never been convicted of a crime, and the government began deportation proceedings. She now claims her conviction should be overturned because her criminal defense lawyer did not advise her of the immigration consequences of a plea, even though that was not a ground for overturning a plea at the time and even though she made no claim she did not commit the offense. In 2010, the Supreme Court created a new rule of law allowing guilty pleas to be attacked on this basis. The case threatens the landmark precedent of Teague v. Lane, won by CJLF in 1989. That case held that new rules of procedure cannot be used to go back and overturn convictions that are already final. Without this rule, many thousands of final convictions would be subject to overturning every time the Supreme Court alters the rules of procedure, as it often does. CJLF entered the case to argue that the rule against retroactivity strikes the correct balance and should be preserved. The high court agreed and left the judgment intact.

United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 6/28/2012 Loss	United States v. Alvarez: U. S. Supreme Court case considering the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, a law enacted by Congress to prohibit the false claiming of military medals. Xavier Alvarez, a member of a California water district board, made numerous false claims about his military record, including being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In fact, he has never served in the military. He was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act and sentenced to probation, a fine, and community service. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the conviction, finding that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. In the Supreme Court, CJLF entered the case, filing a brief on behalf of the Legion of Valor of the United States and itself. Our brief argues that the Act only prohibits lies, not mistakes, parodies, or theatrical performances, and that lies are not protected under the First Amendment. In a splintered decision, the Court decided that the Act as presently drafted is not constitutional.
Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209 Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 3/21/2012 Loss	Lafler v. Cooper/Missouri v. Frye: Two U. S. Supreme Court cases involving criminal defendants who claim that their convictions should be overturned because they may have been convicted on lesser charges had their defense attorneys not given them bad advice. In 2003 Anthony Cooper was charged with attempted murder for shooting a woman causing serious injury. A police officer witnessed the shooting. Prior to trial, the state offered Cooper a plea bargain carrying a shorter sentence than if he were convicted on all charges. His attorney advised against the deal. Cooper was later convicted by a jury and received the longer sentence. In 2007, Galin Frye was charged with driving with a suspended license, a felony because of his multiple prior convictions. Prior to trial, the prosecutor offered to allow Frye to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and serve 90 days in jail. Frye’s attorney did not report this offer to his client. Later, Frye pled guilty to the original felony charge and received 3 years in prison. In Frye, the state appellate court ruled in favor of the defendant. In Cooper, the state courts rejected the claim but a federal appellate court overturned the judgment. CJLF has joined the high court review of these cases to argue that, while a better attorney might have obtained a more favorable deal, neither criminal was unjustly convicted, and neither is entitled to a second chance for a better result. The Supreme Court allowed the claims to proceed but said that the prisoners will not necessarily get their original plea offers back. The high court left the remedy to the trial judge, who might reinstate the original plea offer or reimpose the same sentence the defendants received before.
Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 3/20/2012 Draw	Martinez v. Ryan: U. S. Supreme Court review of a child molester’s claim that his conviction should be overturned because his state-appointed appeals lawyer failed to attack the effectiveness of his trial attorney. Luis Martinez was convicted of two incidents of sexual conduct with his 11-year-old stepdaughter on a July morning in 1999. Evidence at trial included the victim’s videotaped description of the assaults to a social worker and a DNA match of Martinez’s semen on her nightgown. Following his conviction, Martinez’s claims challenging his trial and sentencing were rejected by the state courts on direct appeal, and his appointed lawyer reported that she could find no worthy claims to raise on state collateral review. Later, represented by a different lawyer, Martinez claimed that his appellate lawyer was ineffective because she did not find flaws in the performance of his trial lawyer. This claim was reviewed and rejected by two state courts, the federal district court and the court of appeals. When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider Martinez’s appeal, CJLF joined the case. CJLF argued there is no constitutional right to a government paid lawyer for collateral review or habeas corpus, and therefore no right to challenge the effectiveness of a lawyer appointed for those types of post-conviction proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision retains the rule we argued for as the general rule. However, it carved out a narrow exception for states such as Arizona that do not allow ineffective assistance claims to be made on direct appeal (the first review of a conviction). For these states, ineffective assistance on the state collateral review will be considered "cause" to raise the ineffectiveness as trial counsel on federal habeas corpus.
Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 1/18/2012 Loss	Maples v. Thomas: U. S. Supreme Court review of a convicted Alabama murderer’s claim that he is entitled to federal habeas corpus review of his case even though he missed the state deadline for requesting review. Cory Maples was convicted on strong evidence of the 1995 execution-style murders of two acquaintances and the theft of the car of one of the victims. In 1997 he was convicted on all charges and sentenced to death. After his conviction and sentence were upheld by the state court of appeals and supreme court, attorneys from a New York law firm representing Maples pro bono argued on state collateral review that his trial attorney had been ineffective. Prior to the state court’s ruling denying these claims, the attorneys who had appeared in the court quit the firm, and the firm failed to inform the court of the change of attorneys. As a result, Maples did not receive notice of the ruling, and he missed the state deadline for filing an appeal, which also prevented review of his claims on federal habeas corpus. CJLF has joined the case to argue that Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that criminals are not entitled to counsel for state collateral review or federal habeas corpus. While Maples pro bono lawyers certainly failed him, absent compelling evidence that he is innocent, the post-conviction review of his case should be over. The Court issued a narrow opinion holding that on the unusual facts of this case, the failings of the lawyers constitute cause for the default.
Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 1/11/2012 Win	Perry v. New Hampshire: U. S. Supreme Court review of a habitual thief's claim that his constitutional rights were violated by the admission of eyewitness testimony in his trial for burglarizing a car. On August 15, 2008, at 2:53 a.m., Barion Perry was caught in the parking lot of an apartment building carrying stereo equipment stolen from a nearby car. A woman, whose husband reported the crime, identified Perry as the man she saw break into a car in the well-lit parking lot and steal the equipment. Her husband also identified Perry as the man he had seen wandering around the lot looking into parked cars. At trial, Perry challenged the testimony of the woman arguing her identification of him was unreliable and therefore violated the 14th Amendment (the Due Process Clause) of the Constitution. The judge disagreed, the testimony was admitted, and Perry was convicted. Perry’s claims regarding his identification by the witness were later rejected by the New Hampshire Supreme Court on direct appeal. When the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Perry’s appeal, CJLF joined the case to argue that, except in cases of police misconduct, the Constitution leaves rules governing the introduction of evidence to the states. A decision supporting the thief would have allowed criminals to waste years and millions in tax dollars with federal court challenges to eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court agreed with our position and affirmed the conviction by an 8-1 vote.
Davis v. United States, No. 09-11328 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 6/16/2011 Win	Davis v. United States: U. S. Supreme Court decision rejecting a criminal’s claim that his conviction as an ex-felon in possession of a firearm was invalid because the police search that uncovered his gun violated the Exclusionary Rule. The gun was found in Willie Gene Davis’s jacket pocket during a search after a traffic stop. Davis had left his jacket in the car when police asked him to step out. While the search was legal at the time, during Davis’s appeal a new Supreme Court decision changed search rules to prohibit searching belongings left in a vehicle during a traffic stop. After the appeals court upheld Davis’s conviction because the police had followed the law at the time of the search, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal. CJLF joined the case to encourage a decision finding that searches such as this one should fall under the “good faith” exception established by United States v. Leon, a high court decision CJLF helped win in 1984. The Court’s holding adopted that reasoning.
Brown v. Plata, No. 09-1233 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 5/23/2011 Loss	Brown v. Plata: U. S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the January 2010 order by a panel of three federal judges that requires California to lower its prison population by 27% (currently 33,500 inmates), within two years to remedy overcrowding, which was determined to violate inmates’ constitutional rights. CJLF had joined the case to argue that the release order was invalid because the selection of three notorious pro-defendant judges as panel members by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit guaranteed the result, and that once on the panel, the judges manipulated the process to prevent any objective review of the inmates’ claims.
Cullen v. Pinholster, No. 06-35669 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 4/4/2011 Win	Cullen v. Pinholster: 4/4/11. U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments to reinstate the death sentence of a habitual criminal who killed a man during a home burglary in Los Angeles. In 1984, Scott Pinholster was convicted on strong evidence, including his own incriminating statements, and sentenced to death. Over the next 25 years, six courts reviewed his claim that his defense attorney had failed to adequately present evidence of his mental health problems. In 2009, after a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reviewing the case on habeas corpus rejected the claim, a larger en banc panel accepted it and overturned Pinholster’s death sentence. The en banc panel, after reviewing a third psychiatric evaluation not presented in state court, ruled that the California Supreme Court’s denial of Pinholster’s claim was unreasonable. CJLF joined the high court appeal of that ruling to argue that the Ninth Circuit violated federal law, which prohibits federal courts reviewing a state court decision on habeas corpus from considering evidence never presented to the state court. The court’s decision adopted that reasoning.
Tolentino v. New York, No. 09-11556 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 3/29/11 Draw	Tolentino v. New York: 3/29/11. U. S. Supreme Court announcement that it would not reconsider a New York Court of Appeals decision which denied a defendant’s claim that police access to his criminal record during a traffic stop amounted to an illegal search. Last fall, the high court announced it would hear Jose Tolentino’s claim that because police illegally stopped his car for excessive noise in 2005, they could not introduce his record, which indicated that he was driving on a suspended license and had at least 10 prior suspensions. While the legality of the traffic stop was never determined, the New York court held that the government’s own records do not fall under the protection of the Exclusionary Rule and cannot be excluded from trial. Before the Supreme Court, CJLF argued that the rules governing traffic stops do not prevent police from learning a driver’s identity and checking his or her criminal record. After reviewing briefs and hearing oral argument, the Court determined that it would not disturb the lower court’s holding.
Walker v. Martin, No. 09-996 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 2/23/11 Win	Walker v. Martin: 2/23/11. Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments to reverse a 2009 Ninth Circuit ruling that had found California’s deadline for filing state habeas corpus petitions inadequate. Charles Martin was convicted on strong evidence and sentenced to life in prison for the 1986 stabbing murder of a Sacramento man. After years of successive attempts to overturn his conviction, Martin’s final petition raising new claims was dismissed by both state and federal courts for violating a state rule which requires claims be filed in a timely manner. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit overturned the lower court’s decisions and granted additional review of Martin’s claims. CJLF joined the appeal of that ruling to argue that federal courts should not be allowed to ignore state procedural rules, so long as a defendant had adequate notice of the rule and a reasonable opportunity to comply with it.
Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 1/19/11 Win	Harrington v. Richter: 1/19/11. Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments to reverse a 2009 Ninth Circuit ruling that overturned the robbery/murder conviction of a Sacramento man. After his conviction on strong evidence, Joshua Richter’s claim, that his attorney had been ineffective, was reviewed and summarily rejected by the California Supreme Court, the Federal District Court, and a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel. An en banc eleven-judge Ninth Circuit panel overturned all three courts, finding California’s high court decision unreasonable. In the U. S. Supreme Court, CJLF argued that the California court’s judgment was reasonable and entitled to deference. The high court ruling noted this, protecting thousands of convictions nationwide.
Premo v. Moore, No. 09-658 United States Supreme Court Decision date: 1/19/2011 Win	Premo v. Moore: 1/19/11. Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court decision reinstating the conviction of an Oregon murderer. The decision utilized CJLF arguments to unanimously overturn a 2009 Ninth Circuit ruling which had announced that the murderer’s lawyer was ineffective. Randy Moore admitted to kidnapping a man and then killing him with a gunshot to the temple, but claimed that the single-action revolver went off accidently. His defense attorney negotiated a plea deal which spared Moore from the possibility of a death sentence. Years later, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the conviction, ruling that the defense attorney should have sought to have the confession excluded. CJLF joined the state’s appeal to argue that the Ninth Circuit ruling ignored key facts and violated limits on its authority.