United States v. Mary Waters
770 F.3d 1146
6th Cir.2014Background
- Mary Waters, a former Michigan legislator, pled guilty to a misdemeanor count of filing a fraudulent tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7207 pursuant to a plea agreement and received one year of probation.
- Eight days after sentencing Waters moved pro se to withdraw her plea; the district court denied the motion and this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- More than three years after sentencing, Waters filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging ineffective assistance of counsel: counsel allegedly promised easy expungement and failed to vigorously represent her due to a conflict from representing another defendant (Sam Riddle).
- The district court denied the coram nobis petition, concluding Waters failed to show she suffered an ongoing civil disability warranting coram nobis relief.
- Waters appealed and the Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, finding coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy and that reputational harm alone (and unsupported travel impairment claims) do not satisfy the ongoing-civil-disability requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of coram nobis | Waters: counsel was ineffective; coram nobis is available though she is not in custody | United States: coram nobis is extraordinary and requires an ongoing civil disability beyond reputational injury | Denied — coram nobis not warranted because Waters failed to allege an ongoing civil disability |
| Counsel conflict of interest at sentencing | Waters: counsel conflicted by representing Riddle, so performance was deficient | United States: no showing that conflict affected outcome or caused ongoing collateral consequences | Rejected — allegations insufficient to justify coram nobis relief |
| Expungement promise as basis for relief | Waters: counsel promised conviction could be “easily” expunged, impacting plea voluntariness | United States: unproven, and even if inaccurate, does not establish the specific ongoing disabilities required for coram nobis | Rejected — promise allegation does not meet extraordinary-writ standard |
| Sufficiency of reputational or travel harms | Waters: conviction harmed reputation and ability to travel abroad | United States: reputation alone (and unsupported travel impairment) does not establish the required collateral consequences | Rejected — reputational injury is insufficient for coram nobis |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilla v. United States, 668 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2012) (describing coram nobis as extraordinary writ available when §2255 is unavailable)
- Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (discussing coram nobis principles and finality concerns)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy reserved for circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice)
- United States v. Bush, 888 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir. 1989) (requiring allegation of ongoing civil disability to obtain coram nobis)
- Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1987) (declining to require an ongoing civil disability under a mootness-based approach)
- Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding reputational injury alone insufficient for coram nobis relief)