Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Premo v. Moore

Docket No.: 09-658
Certiorari Granted: 03/22/10
Argued: October 12, 2010
Decided: 01/19/11

Topics:

Death Penalty, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, capital murder, habeas, habeas corpus, harmless error, harmless-error, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder, search and seizure

PartyNames: Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Randy Joseph Moore
Petitioner: Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary
Respondent: Randy Joseph Moore

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 574 F.3d 1092
Supreme Court Docket

Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary
v.
Randy Joseph Moore
Question Presented:

1. This Court established in Hill v. Lockhart the standard for assessing, in a collateral challenge to a conviction that was based on a guilty or no-contest plea, whether an attorney's deficient performance requires reversal of a conviction. In Arizona v. Fulminante--a direct appellate review case--this Court reviewed all the evidence presented at trial and held that the erroneous admission of a coerced confession at the trial was not harmless. a. If a collateral challenge is based on a defense attorney's decision not to move to suppress a confession prior to a guilty or no contest plea, does the Fulminante standard apply, even though no record of a trial is available for review? b. Even if the Fulminante standard applies in that context, is it "clearly established Federal law" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(d)(1)? 2. In Moore's underlying criminal case, he confessed to police that he personally shot the victim. He also confessed to two other people, and he ultimately pleaded no contest to murder. In his collateral challenge to his conviction, he alleged that his attorney should have moved to suppress the confession to police, but he offered no evidence that he would have insisted on going to trial had counsel done so. Did the Ninth Circuit err by granting federal habeas relief on Moore's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim?

Question:

Does a lawyer provide inadequate representation by failing to seek suppression of a client's confession before he pleads no contest to murder?

Note:

JUSTICE KAGAN TOOK NO PART

Premo v. Moore
ORAL ARGUMENT

10/12/10

Listen to Oral Argument in Premo v. Moore
Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 8-0
Recused: J.,
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)