(HC) Nash v. Unknown, 1:17-cv-00238

Background

Petitioner Angelique Nash was convicted of first-degree murder in Kern County and sentenced to 25 years-to-life; the Fifth DCA later vacated a special-circumstance finding but affirmed the conviction in all other respects.
At issue were (1) recorded statements (a jail phone call) in which Nash urged a witness (Patterson) to "plead the 5th," and (2) whether Nash’s trial counsel (Gagliardini) should be permitted to withdraw in order to testify about pretrial attorney–client discussions bearing on that phone call.
During Nash’s third trial counsel moved to be added to the witness list to explain a prior attorney–client discussion; the trial court provisionally denied withdrawal, appointed independent counsel to advise Nash, and the parties agreed to a stipulation in lieu of live testimony by counsel.
Patterson initially gave a taped statement implicating Nash, Moses, and Katila; at trial Patterson recanted and testified she had lied to police, claiming coercion/benefit; other forensic and circumstantial evidence (including DNA on a cigarette butt and stipulations about Moses/Katila) linked the defendants to the burglary and homicide.
Nash argued on appeal and in this habeas petition that the trial court’s handling of counsel’s motion (and the resulting waiver/stipulation) deprived her of effective assistance / counsel at a critical stage (an advocate–witness problem), and she also challenged the special-circumstance finding (which was already vacated by the state court).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying counsel's motion to withdraw so counsel could testify (advocate–witness issue / denial of counsel at critical stage)	Nash: denial coerced her into waiving privilege/accepting counsel's dual role, depriving effective assistance and counsel at a critical stage	Respondent: denial was provisional; court appointed independent counsel, Nash knowingly agreed to a stipulation in lieu of testimony, and counsel did not testify	Held: No federal-error; state court reasonably found no denial of counsel or conflict—claim rejected on the merits and not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent
Whether the special-circumstance (murder during burglary) finding lacked evidentiary support	Nash: special circumstance unsupported by evidence	Respondent: state court already vacated the special-circumstance finding on appeal	Held: Moot (special-circumstance vacated by state court)

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (federal habeas review standard under AEDPA)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (AEDPA application and deference to state courts)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (unreasonable application standard; fair‑minded jurists test)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (standard distinguishing unreasonable from incorrect application of federal law)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless‑error standard for habeas review)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (application of Brecht standard)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (conflict‑of‑interest precedents involving multi‑representation)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (state court need not apply a rule not squarely established by Supreme Court)