Author: Paul Richardson

The Indiana Supreme Court recently reinstated a previously dismissed voluntary manslaughter charge against a defendant whose attorney-client privileged conversation was recorded at a police station during a break in law enforcement questioning. The conversation was then transcribed and distributed to government prosecutors. The defendant was accused of fatally shooting his wife in December 2012 at their Long Beach Home, according to reports on the incident by the Michigan City News-Dispatch and NWI.com.

The Case

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the prior dismissal of the voluntary manslaughter charges against the defendant due to misconduct by law enforcement was an “extreme remedy.” The Court also found that a trial court can determine which evidence is tainted by misconduct. The Court further held that trial delays during the appeal, as well as a request for a new judge, were attributable to the defendant. Accordingly, he was not entitled to a dismissal for lack of a speedy trial. A trial judge tossed the voluntary manslaughter charge in 2016 and an Indiana appeals court affirmed the ruling in 2017.

The Conversation

Statements made by the defendant during an initial interview were evidence that was suppressed because law enforcement officers continued to question the defendant even after he had invoked his right to an attorney. The defendant agreed to another interview only if the state would consider lowering the charges to manslaughter. During a break in questioning during the second interview, video cameras recorded the defendant’s privileged conversation with his attorney. The discussions included the sequence of events on the evening of the shooting, motive, possible charges, and possible defenses. Both law enforcement officers and government prosecutors viewed the video, which was later transcribed by a court reporter and handed over to the prosecutor’s office. The defendant did not learn about the eavesdropping by prosecutors and police until a year after it happened.

Supreme Court’s Decision

Indiana’s Supreme Court found no dispute that the state committed misconduct. Beyond the listened to and transcribed attorney-client privileged conversation, there was also evidence that one officer had another change his statement regarding a prior interaction with the defendant’s wife, and that the gun that was used in the shooting was tampered with. Nonetheless, the Court held that the state must be given the chance to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some untainted and admissible evidence exists in the case. In other words, it must be given a chance to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting’s Legal Fact of the Week is here to help you get through the work week by sharing a random fact about American History, law, and more!

EGCR’s Legal Fact of the Week: Independence Day

During the American Revolution, the division of the colonies actually took place on July 2nd, 1776. However, once this was accomplished, Congress put its focus on the Declaration of Independence. It took them two days, which was July 4th, 1776, for them finally approve the Declaration of Independence.

A California federal appeals court denied an inmate’s request for a new trial. The inmate is presently serving a life sentence for murder. The court held he was unable to show that racism by his court-appointed lawyer resulted in a deficient trial performance. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reluctantly ruled against Ezzard Ellis. The panel of three judges held they were bound by 9th Circuit precedent involving the same lawyer who is now deceased, although they all concurred that the decision undercut the right to counsel.

The Case

Ellis was convicted in his fifth trial in 1991 for murder, attempted murder and robbery in relation to a fatal shooting outside of a McDonald’s two years prior. Ellis’s first two trials ended in mistrials due to unavailable witnesses; the third and fourth trials resulted in hung juries. Ellis argued that Ames held deeply racist beliefs about African-Americans as a whole and specifically against Ellis. Ellis was not aware of this until a friend sent him a newspaper article recounting Ames’ daughters testimony about their father’s frequent use of racial slurs regarding his clients. Nonetheless, a 2001 9th Circuit decision — Mayfield v. Woodford — held that the inmate was not entitled to relief unless he could show Ames’ racism resulted in poor trial performance. Pursuing his case pro se, Ellis utilized declarations of Ames’s daughters as well as those from people who worked with him.

Noting he was bound by Mayfield, Ellis had the burden of showing he was either aware of Ames’s racism and it caused a complete breakdown in attorney-client communications or that Ames’s racism adversely affected his performance as counsel. The court found Ellis was unable to prove either. In its concurrence, the court found that with an attorney as deeply racist as Ames, the assumption that he was acting in his client’s best interest was unfounded.

Effective Assistance of Counsel

The effective assistance of counsel is the right of a criminal defendant or appellant to have competent legal representation. This right applies whether the attorney was court appointed or privately retained by the defendant. Generally, competent legal representation is without errors that would result in the denial of a fair trial (i.e., a different outcome at trial). There is a general deference to attorneys’ decisions when it comes to the legal strategy taken on a particular case. For this reason, most attorney errors do not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently upheld a Minnesota law that invalidated beneficiary designations to spouses after a divorce. The Court, in a 8-1 ruling, held the law did not violate the contracts clause when applied to a policy purchased before the law’s enactment. The case is Sveen v. Melin.

Beneficiary Revocation Post-Divorce

Minnesota is one of 26 states across the country that have adopted a “revocation on divorce” law. Essentially, these laws automatically revoke beneficiary designations to former spouses. These revocation laws are based on a 1990 amendment to the Uniform Probate Code, which was adopted on the presumption that failure to update beneficiary designations post-divorce and remove ex-spouses likely was the result of inattention and not intention. Under Minnesota law, an insurance policy holder or a court could override the revocation of the beneficiary.

Sveen v. Melin

There was no override of revocation in the case at hand. In Sveen, Mark Sveen had designated his Kaye Melin as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy and his two children from a prior marriage as the contingent beneficiaries. Upon Sveen’s passing, the children claimed they were the rightful beneficiaries of the insurance proceeds. Melin argued Minnesota law violated the contracts clause because the policy was purchased prior to the law’s enactment. The contracts clause prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts.

The Court’s Ruling

 The SCOTUS decision resolves a split of authority on the issue of whether or not a revocation law can apply to pre-existing beneficiary designations. The Court reasoned that the state law did not operate as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship. According to the Court, the law was designed to reflect a policy holder’s intent; is unlikely to disturb a policy holder’s expectations because it does what a divorce court could have; and supples a default, which the policyholder can always change.

Experts believe this SCOTUS decision will likely affect the majority of states in the country.