Salts v. Epps
676 F.3d 468
5th Cir.2012Background
- Michael and Marie Salts were funeral-home operators convicted of embezzling customer funeral-insurance funds after Gulf terminated coverage.
- Indicted May 12, 2003; trial began October 3, 2005 after years of delays, courthouse renovations, venue transfer, and continuances.
- They were represented by multiple lawyers; their last-minute new counsel Waide raised a pretrial conflict-of-interest claim based on joint representation.
- The trial court denied further continuances and did not conduct a Holloway-style conflict inquiry, proceeding to trial on October 3, 2005.
- Saltses were convicted on four counts each and sentenced to ten years in Mississippi state prison.
- State courts denied relief on direct appeal; Saltses then sought federal habeas relief, which the district court granted on the joint-representation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint representation violated the Sixth Amendment given timely objection | Saltses timely objected; Waide's conflict notice required court investigation. | Waiver/actual-conflict requirements supported by state court; no reversible error. | Relief warranted; Holloway applies; convictions vacated and remanded for retrial window. |
| Whether the state court's waiver finding was contrary to clearly established law | Waiver was not proven; record shows no waiver; error under Zerbst standard. | Waiver supported by trial-court recollection; reasonable under record. | Unreasonable determination of facts; relief proper under AEDPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (automatic reversal for timely objections to joint representation unless no conflict)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (no timely objection requires showing actual conflict)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2002) (reaffirms Holloway automatic reversal rule when timely objection)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (presumes against waiver of constitutional rights)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (AEDPA standards for reviewing state-court decisions)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (deferential AEDPA review; existence of fairminded disagreement governs relief)
- Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc: review scope under AEDPA; precedential for applying Holloway/Cuyler)