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

 

MARTEL v. CLAIR

Docket No.: 10-1265
Certiorari Granted: 06/27/11
Argued: December 6, 2011
Decided: 03/05/12

Topics:

court appointed counsel, Civil Procedure, Death Penalty, Sixth Amendment, abuse of discretion, capital murder, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, jury selection, murder

PartyNames: Michael Martel, Warden v. Kenneth Clair
Petitioner: Michael Martel, Warden
Respondent: Kenneth Clair

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 05-99005

Michael Martel, Warden
v.
Kenneth Clair
Background:

At the end of ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent suddenly complained about and sought replacement of his court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that "it appears Petitioner's counsel is doing a proper job" and that "[n]o conflict of interest or inadequacy of counsel is shown," and thereupon issued its ruling denying habeas corpus relief. On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit appointed a replacement lawyer, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings to allow the new lawyer to raise additional claims for relief. The Ninth Circuit explained that no showing of ineffectiveness of counsel was required, for it was enough that Clair had expressed "dissatisfaction" and had alleged that the public defender was failing to pursue potentially important evidence.

Question Presented:

The Question Presented is: Whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence.

Question:

Is a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence?

Note:

court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that "it appears Petitioner's counsel is doing a proper job" and that "[n]o conflict of interest or inadequacy of counsel is shown," and thereupon issued its ruling denying habeas corpus relief. On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit appointed a replacement lawyer, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings to allow the new lawyer to raise additional claims for relief. The Ninth Circuit explained that no showing of ineffectiveness of counsel was required, for it was enough that Clair had expressed "dissatisfaction" and had alleged that the public defender was failing to pursue potentially important evidence. The Question Presented is: Whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence.

MARTEL v. CLAIR
ORAL ARGUMENT

12/06/11

Listen to Oral Argument in MARTEL v. CLAIR
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Martel, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Majority: Unanimous
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)