In the Supremes

Philip D. Cave

The court granted a writ of certiorari today in Vasquez v. United States.

Here is a link to the decision at the Seventh.

Here is a link to the petition. (Not posted on SCOTUSBlog yet).

Here is an interesting lead to the Introduction:

This is a case where a federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that the erroneous admission, for the truth of the matter asserted, of trial counsel’s out-of-court statement that his client was guilty was harmless.

Here are the issues:

1) Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court’s precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel’s statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury at all? 2) Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr. Vasquez’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that Mr. Vasquez should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court’s error on the jury that heard the case?

From the brief in opposition:

Although the court of appeals rejected most of petitioner’s arguments, it agreed with petitioner that the district court had improperly admitted the [phone] recordings for their truth. The court concluded, however, that the error was harmless. . .

In the phone recording between the witness who testified and her co-accused husband, Perez, she apparently said to her husband that (from the petition):

Vasquez’s lawyer told her that if they went to trial, “everybody is going to lose.” These statements were explicitly admitted for their truth. The attorney who addressed the jury in closing was the very same attorney who the jury was told had instructed Mr. Vasquez to pled guilty and had stated that Mr. Vasquez would lose at trial.

From the opposition:

Petitioner contends that the court of appeals applied the wrong standard for harmless-error review in upholding his conviction and that its decision implicates a circuit conflict on whether the impact of an error on the jury, as well as the strength of the government’s evidence, is relevant to harmless-error analysis.

What is the test for HBRD?

h/t SCOTUSBlog.

Client Reviews

Many years after retiring from the USN, I suddenly found myself in a very unwelcome legal matter with the Navy. It was a total shock and I was very concerned as to the impact this would have on me and my...

Rob

I was facing accusations that would not only ruin my career but my life. When I hired Mr. Freeburg, he gave me the hope that everything would be turn out great. He put a great team together along with my...

Air Force Anonymous

Phil Cave has helped me through NJP and restoration of my security clearance. He even came to visit me in Spain. I never thought I would work again and he certainly through with advise and guidance that we're...

Bryan

Mr. Nathan Freeburg fought and won a war for me. A war where my life was on the line. The week of trial was extremely long but he never seemed like he was tired. The prosecution were getting whittled down each...

Navy Anonymous

Mr. Cave saved my military retirement! His promise to me from day one was that he would fight as hard as he could he right the wring that had been done to me. And he did! I am so very thankful and grateful to...

Crystal

Mr. Freeburg is passionate about justice and upholding the law and dignity of the court. He is brave and bold in his ability to represent his clients amidst the attempted intimidation and procedural pressure...

Navy Represented

The Army and prosecution was pushing for me to take a Chapter 10. But Mr. Freeburg made me confident we could win. We went to trial and he crushed them in cross examination and he saved my career.

Vince

Contact Us

  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Over 40 Years of Experience
  3. 3 Dedicated to Military Law
Fill out the contact form or call us at 703-298-9562 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message